€  C  C 
ffrf 


Library  of 
The  University  of  North  Carolina 


COLLECTION  OF 

NORTH  CAROLINIANA 


ENDOWED  BY 

JOHN  SPRUNT  HILL 
of  the  Class  of  1889 


i-JL 


^ 


'•  •..''> 


UNIVERSITY  OF  N.C.  AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


00032195071 


This  book  must  not 
be  token  from  the 
Librory  building. 


T  R  I  ^L 


OP 


ANDREW    JOHNSON, 


PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


BEFORE  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


IMPEACHMENT 


BY    THE   HOUSE   OF    REPRESENTATIVES 


HIGH  CRIMES  AND  MISDEMEANORS. 


PUBLISHED  BT  OBDER  OF  THE  SENATE. 


TOI.UME   I. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVEKNMENT     P E I N T I N G     OFFICE 
1868. 


In  TiiE  Senate  of  the  United  States,  March  23,  1868. 
Resolved,  That  three  hundred  copies  of  the  edition  of  the  report  of  the  impeiichment  trial 
published  at  the  Conj^ressional  Priutingf  Office  be  furnished,  as  the  trial  progjresses,  for  the 
use  of  the  Senate,  and  that  five  thousand  copies  of  the  entire  work,  with  an  index,  be  printed 
and  bound  lor  the  use  of  the  Senate. 

April  14,  1868. 
Resolved,    That  there  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Senate,  at  the  close  of  the  pending- 
impeachment  trial,  five  thousand  copies  of  the  report  thereof,  in  addition  to  the  number  of 
copies  thereof  heretofore  ordered  to  be  printed. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  V.\,  1868. 
Resolved,  That  the  Congressional  Printer  be  directed  to  furnish  five  copies  of  the  trial  of 
impeachment  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  book  form,  to  each  member  of  the 
House,  the  next  morninf^  after  its  publication  in  the  Daily  Globe,  and  to  print  and  bind  five 
thousand  copies,  when  completed,  for  the  members  of  the  House. 


Note  by  the  Editor.— The  phonographic  report  of  the  trial  (from  which  the  present 
volumes  have  been  made  up)  was  made  for  the  Congressional  Globe,  by  its  Senate  reporters, 
Messrs.  Richard  Sutton,  D.  F.  Murphy,  and  James  T.  Murphy.  The  index  was  prepared  by 
Mr.  Fisher  A.  Foster. 

It  was  necessary  to  print  the  work  as  the  trial  progressed,  and  the  limited  space  left  for  the 
sketches  of  the  introductory  proceedings  rendered  it  necessary  to  abridge  them,  and  to  pub- 
lish the  report  of  the  debate  on  the  right  of  Senator  Wade  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court,  in 
the  appendix  at  the  end  of  the  third  volume.  This  appendix  also  contains  a  tVw  authorities 
in  addition  to  those  composing  the  brief  prepared  by  Hon.  William  Lawrence,  M.  C.  from 
Ohio,  and  presented  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  as  a  part  of  his  opening  argument,  which  have 
been  furnished  by  the  first-named  gentleman. 

B.  P.  P. 


INDEX. 


INDEX. 

[The  Roman  numerals  indicate  the  volnmee.] 


A. 

Able,  Barton.     (See  Tcslimo7iy.) 

Acquiittil  on  Article  XI 11—486,487 

II 11—496 

III •. 11—497 

judgment  of,  entered II — 498 

Adjournment  sine  die II — 498 

ArtuuBsibility  of  testimony.     (See  Evidence.) 

Admissions  to  the  floor,  order  (in  Senate)  that,  during  the  trial,  no  person  besides  those  who  have  the 
privilege  of  the  floor,  &c.,  shall  be  admitted  except  upon  tickets  issued  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms — [By 

Mr.  Anthony  :]  agreed  to J — 10 

Alta  Vela  letter 11-144,  262,  28W,  306 

remarks  on,  bv — 

.Manager  Butler ■ 11-262,267,268,281,280,284 

Mr.  Nelson 11—144,265,266,267,268,280,281,282,283,284,307 

Manager  Logan l 11 — 268 

Answer,  application  of  counsel  for  forty  days  to  prepare I — 19 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Bingham I — 20,22 

Mr.  Curtis 1—20 

Mr.  Stanbery I — 21 

Manager  Wilson I — 20 

denied 1—24 

orders  offered  fixing  day  for  respondent  to  file,  by — 

Mr.  Edmunds 1—24,3.5 

Mr.  Drake 1—35 

Mr.  Trumbull "■. .1— 35 

order  that  respondent  file,  on  or  before  23d  March — [By  Mr.  Trumbull.] 

offered  and  agreed  to I — 35 

read  and  filed I — 37 

exhibits  accompanying — 

A,  message  of  President,  March  2,  1867,  returning  with  objections  tenure-of-office  bill I — .53 

B,  message  of  President,  December  12,  1867,  announcing  suspension  of  Secretary  Stanton I — 58 

C,  address  to  President,  by  Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson,  August  18,  1866,  communicating  proceedings  of 

National  Union  Convention I — 66 

Anthony,  Henry  B.,  a  senator  from  Rhode  Island I — 11 

orders  by — 

(in  Senate,)  that  during  the  trial  no  persons  besides  those  who  have  the  privilege  of  the  floor,  &.C., 

shall  be  admitted  except  upon  tickets  issued  by  the  Sergeant -at -arms.     Agreed  to I — 10 

that  no  senator  shall  speak  more  than  once,  nor  to  exceed  fifteen  minutes  during  deliberation  on 
final  question,  except  by  leave  of  Senate,  to  be  had  without  debate,  as  provided  by  Rule  xxiii. 

offered 11—471 

tabled,  (yeas  28,  nays  20) 11—474 

that  on  Wednesday,  (May  13,)  at  12  o'clock,  the  Senate  shall  proceed  to  vote,  without  debate,  on 

the  several  articles,  &c.;  offered  and  rejected,  (yeas  13,  nays  27) II — 476 

remarks  by 1—16,247,301,370,48.5,490,498,634,700.726,728,738,741 

U—13,307,  389,  470,  471,472,  476,  486.    Ill— 388 

Application  of  counsel  for  forty  days  to  prepare  answer I — 19 

denied 1—24 

for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial 1 — 69 

denied,  (yeas  12,  nays  41) .■ ^ — ^~ 

for  three  days  to  prepare  proofs I — 367,  369 

granted 1 — 371 

for  adjournment  in  consequence  of  illness  of  Mr.  Stanbery I — 533 

Argument,  right  of  counsel  making  motion  to  open  and  close,  thereon I — 77 

final,  orders  offered  to  fix  the  number  of  speakers  on,  by — 

Manager  Bingham ." I — '^50 

Mr.  Frelin^huyseu I — ^51 

Mr.  Sumner... 1-491,497.532 

Ml-.  Sherman 1—495,741.     U— 6 

Mr.  Conness - 1—535.    11—5,8 

Mr.  Doolittle 1—5.36 

Mr.  Stewart 1—741 

Mr.  Vickers : 11—3,  4 

Mr.  Johnson II — 5 

Mr.  Corbett il— 7 

Mr.  Henderson II-m! 

Mr.  Trumbull II— 1 1 

Mr.  Buckalew ' 11—12 

Mr.  Cameron /-. „ J- 11—12 

Mr.  Yates 11—12 


IV  INDEX. 

Argument,  final — Continupc]. 
order  that  us  many  of  managers  as  desire  be  permitted  to  file,  or  address  Senate  oraljy,  the  conclusion 
of  oral  argument  to  be  by  one  manager — [By  Mr.  Trumbull.] 

offered II— 1 1 

adopted,  (yeas  28,  nuys  20) '.'.  .II— U 

Argument  (in  the  ca^e  by — 

Manager  Butler I 37 

Mr.  Curtis 1—377,  390,  397 

JIaiiager  Logan II 14 

Manager  lioutwell 11 07,  84  99 

Mr.  Nelson II i\g^  141 

Jlr.  Groesbeck .- II— 189 

Manager  Stevens II 019 

Manager  Williams II 230  249 

Mr.  Evarts '..'.'.  .'.'".'.'.'.'.".11— 209,  284,  308,  .3:)6 

Mr.  .Staubery II— 3:.!t, :{«) 

Manager  Biugham JI— 389,  447 

Armstrong,  William  W.     (.See  Tcslimony.) 

Articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  by  House  of  Representatives I-  6 

vote  ou.     (See  Quescion.) 

B. 

Bayard,  James  A.,  a  senator  from  Delaware I 11 

remarks  ou  the  competency  of  the  Preoiden t /Jro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court 111—372 

order  by — 
that  no  senator  shall  speak  more  than  once,  nor  to  exceed  thirty  minutes,  during  deliberations  ou 

final  question;  ofi'ered  and  rejected,  (yeas  10,  nays  34) 11—218 

remarks  by II— 7,  218 

Bingham,  Jolin  A.,  of  Ohio,  a  manager,  chairman 1 4, 17 

motions  by — 

that  upon  filing  replication  the  trial  proceed  forthwith  ;  offered  and  denied,  (yeas  25,  nays  26) 1—25 

to  amend  Kule  XXI,  .so  as  to  allow  such  of  managers  and  counsel  as  desire  to  be  heard  to  speak  on 

final  argument I 450 

argument  by — 

on  application  of  counsel  for  forty  days  to  prepare  answer I 20,22 

for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial I 69, 77,'  78 

on  motion  to  fix  day  for  trial  to  proceed 1—32!  33 

ou  riglit  of  managers  to  close  deljate  on  interlocutory  questions 1—77 

ou  authority  of  Chief  Justice  to  decide  questions  of  evidence I — 180,181,  183 

ou  motion  in  regard  to  rule  limiting  argument  on  final  question l-UsO,  5.34 

on  right  of  Counsel  to  reuew  examinatiou  of  a  witness  recalled  by  court I 524,525,527 

ou  admissibility — 

of  Adjutant  General  Thomas's  declarations  to  Mr.  Budeigh,  February  21, 1868 1—202,206 

to  clerks  of  War  Department I 213 

of  President's  letter  to  General  Grant,  unaccompanied  with  enclosures 1—244 

of  appointment  of  Edmund  Cooper,  to  be  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury I— 2t)2 

of  President's  declarations  to  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  February  21 1 — 425 

prior  to  March  9 1 430 

of  que.stiou.  Whether  General  Sherman  gave  President  an  opinion,  &,c I — 498, 505.  .WS 

of  President's  message  to  Senate,  February  24 1—540,541,542,543 

final,  on  the  case II 3(^9  447 

Bl'xigett,  Foster.     (See  Testimony.) 

IJi.utwell,  George  S.,  of  Massachu-setts,  a  manager I 1,  17 

argument  by — 

ou  application  of  counsel  for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial 1—78 

on  authority  of  Chief  Justice  to  decide  questions  of  evidence I— 181,  184 

on  admissibility — 

of  telegrams  relating  to  the  reconstruction  of  Alabama 1—274 

of  extriicts  from  records  of  Navy  Department 1—567 

final,  on  the  case H 67,  84,99 

remarks  ou  the  case  of  the  removal  of  Timothy  Pickering 1—367 

on  motion  relating  to  the  number  of  speakers  on  final  argument 1 — 495 

Brief  of  anthiiriiies  upon  the  law  of  impeachable  crimes  and  misdemeanors— [By  Hon.  'William  Law- 
rence, M.  C,  of  Ohio] 1—123.     UI— ,355 

Buckalew,  Charles  K. ,  a  senator  from  Pennsylvania I— 1 1 

remarks  ou  the  competency  of  the  President  ;jro  tempore  to  Sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill— 383,  385 

order  by — 
that  the  conclusion  of  the  oral  argument  be  by  one  manager,  as  provided  in  Rule  XXI;  offered  and 

agreed  to II ig 

prescribing  form  of  final  f|uestiou  ;  offered II — 178 

that  the  views  of  Chief  Justice  ou  the  form  of  putting  final  question  be  entered  on  the  journal; 

offered  and  agreed  to II 48O 

remarks  by I— 451,' 728,  741),  741.     11-5,  12,  478,480,  483,  489 

oiii'inn  on  the  case Ill o[q 

Burleigh,  Walter  A.     (See  Tcstimnnu.) 

Builer,  Benjamin  F.,  of  Massachusett.s,  a  manager ,  I — 117 

argument  by — 

on  motion  to  fix  a  day  for  trial  to  proceed I  —25 

ou  moti(m  relating  to  the  number  of  speakers  on  final  argument I — 496 

on  applicatif)n  of  counsel  lor  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial 1—81 

opening,  on  the  case 1— S7 

on  HUthorily  of  Chief  Justice  to  decide  <iuestions  of  evideuce 1—176,  177,  181,  184 

on  right  of  counsel  to  reuew  examination  of  a  witness  recalled  by  court 1—523  ' 

ou  admissibility —  , 

of  Adjutant  Genenil  TlioniaJ's  declarations  to  Mr.  Burleigh,  Feb.  21,  1868 1—187,  192,  193.  ]9."j  207 

to  cierks'of  War  Di.partmeut 1-212 

of  uppoiutnieut  of  Edmund  Cooper  to  be  Assistant  .Secretary  of'Treasury 1—259,  260,  2(J3   264,  205 


INDEX  V 

Btitlor,  Benjiimin  P.,  of  Massachusetts,  nrpwrneut  by,  on  aflmissibilify — Continued, 

of  telfRiMrad  relatiug  to  the  l•econ^tl•udioIl  of  "AlabHtna I — 270,  271,  273,  27.5,  276 

of  Chronicle's  report  of  President's  speech  in  reply  to  Hon.  lleverdy  Johnson 1—286,  289,  297,  nni 

of  Leader's  report  of  Prcsiilont's  speech  at  CUMeliind I — 3:22,  323,  324 

of  President's  declarations  to  Adjntaut  General  Thomas,  Feb,  21 1 — 420,  '121.  '122 

prior  to  JIarch  9,  as  to  use  of  foice 1—429,  4:iO 

of  conversations  between  President  and  General  Sherman,  Jan.  14.  ..I — 4G2,  4ti3,  Mt'),  468,  469,  47(Ji,  471 

472,  473,  475,  479 

of  question  respectin^r  Department  of  the  Atlantic I — 481,  482 

of  tender  of  War  Office  to  Gentral  Sherman 1—482,  483,  484 

of  President's  purpose  to  get  the  (juestiou  before  the  courts I — 485,  480 

of  question.  Whether  General  .Sherman  formed  and  gave  President  an  opinion,  &c I — 500,  501.  504 

of  affidavit  and  warrant  of  arix'st  of  Lorenzo  Thomas I — 510,  511,  512,  513,  514 

of  President's  message  to  Senate,  Feb.  24 1— .538,  539,  540,  541,  542,  513 

of  extracts  from  records  of  Navy  Department I — 561,  5G2,  563,  .564,  565.'  566 

of  employment  of  counsel  by  President  to  get  up  test  case I — 597,  60O,  604 

of  President's  declarations  to  Mr.  Perrin,  Feb.  21 1—62.5,  627 

to  Secretary  Welles T...1- 667,  67 1 

of  advice  to  President  by  Cabinet  touching  constitutionality  of  tenure-of-ofHce  act I — 676,  677,  678 

'  touching  construction  of  tenure-of-office  act I — 604,  695 

of  cabinet  consultations  in  regard  to  obtaining  a  judicial  decision,  &c 1 — 698,  699 

of  papers  in  Mr.  Blodgett's  case 1—722,  723,  724,  725 

remarks  on  application  of  counsel  for  adjournment 1^628,  C29 

on  the  Alta  Vela  letter : 11—262,  267,  268,  281,282,  284 

C. 

C.iraeron,  Simon,  a  senator  from  Pennsylvania I — 1 1 

order  bj- — 
that  all  the  managers  and  counsel  be  permitted  to  lile  arguments  by  eleven  o'clock,  April  23  ; 

olfered  and  rejected II — 12 

erder  by — 

that  .Senate  hereafter  hold  night  sessions  from  eight  until  eleven  p,  m, ;  offered II — 283 

tabled,  (yeas,  32;  nays,  17) 11—308 

remarks  by 1—184, 240, 266, 267,  370, 371,  632,  726.     11—12,  268,  283, 469,  470, 473,  481, 482, 487,  491,  497 

question  by I — 267 

Cattell,  Alexander  G.,  a  .Senator  from  New  Jersey I — 1 1 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 178 

Chandler,  William  E.     (See  Testimony.) 

Chandler,  Zachariah,  a  senator  from  Michigan I — 1 1 

remarks  by 1—674.     11—482,  483 

Chew,  Robert  S.     (See  Testimony.) 

Chief  Justice,  attendance  of,  requested  as  presiding  officer  in  the  trial I — 10 

oath  administered  to I — IL 

casting  vote  given  by I — 185,  276 

resolution  denying  authority  of,  to  vote  on  any  question  during  the  trial — \Bij  Mr.  Sumner.] 

offered  and  rejected,  (yeas,  22 ;  nays,  26) I — 185 

order  denying  privilege  of.  to  rule  questions  of  law — [  By  Mr.  Drake.] 

offered  and  rejected,  (yeas,  20;  nays,  30,)    1—186 

order  denying  authority  of,  to  give  casting  vote — [By  Mr.  Sumner.] 

offered  and  rejected,  (yeas,  21;  nays,  27; I — 167 

order  that  the  ruling  of,  upon  all  question  of  evidence,  .shall  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  .Senate  unless 
a  formal  vote  be  asked,  <fec. — [By  Mr.  Henderson.] 

offered 1—185 

agreed  to,  (yeas,  31 ;  naj's,  19) I — 186 

views  of,  on  form  of  putting  linal  question II — 480 

appeals  from  decisions  of II — 488.     Ill — 394 

opinion  of  JIv.  .Sumner  on  the  question,  Can  the,  presiding  in  the  Senate,  rule  or  vote  ? Ill — 281 

Clarke,  D.  W.  C.     (See  Testimony.) 
Clephane,  James  O.     (.See  Testimony.) 

Cole,  Cornelius,  a  senator  from  California I — 1 1 

remarks  by 1—508.     11—479 

Committee  (in  House)  to  communicate  to  .Senate  the  action  of  the  House  directing  an  impeachment  of 

Andrew  Johnson  ;  ordered I — 2 

appointed 1 — 3 

appear  at  bar  of  Senate I — 5 

report  to  House I — 3 

(in  House)  to  prepare  articles  of  impeachment  against  Andrew  Johnson ;  ordered I — 2 

appointed I — 3 

report  of ,^ I — 3,  6 

(in  Senate)  to  consider  and  report  on  the  message  of  the  House  relating  to  the  impeachment  o^\ndrew 

Johnson  ;  ordered  and  appointed I — 5 

report  of 1—5,  13 

(in  Senate)  to  request  the  attendance  of  the  Chief  Justice  as  presiding  officer  in  the  trial ;  ordered  and 

appointed 1 — 10 

Competency.     (See  Evidence.) 

C'm'Kling,  Koscoe,  a  senator  from  New  York I — 1 1 

orders  liy — 
that  Rule  XXIII  be  amended  by  inserting  "  subject  to  operation  of  Rule  VII." 

offered  and  agreed  to I — 18 

that,  unless  otherwise  ordered,  trial  proceed  immediately  after  replication  tiled;'  offered I — 31 

agreed  to,  (yeas,  40;  nays,  10) I — 33 

that  the  Senate  commence  the  trial  30th  March  instant;  agreed  to,  (yeas,  28;  nays,  24) I — 85 

prescribing  form  of  tiual  question  ;  offered II — 478 

that  Senate  proceed  to  vote  on  remaining  articles;  rejected,  (yeas,  26;  nays,  28) II — 492 

remarks  by I— 17. 18, 24,  31 ,  32, 33,  85, 179, 1 80,  208, 210,  236  246,  267,  277, 301 ,  324, 359, 370,  390,  4.50, 

451,  4.52,  490,  497,  521,  537,  565,  673,  676,  l)"99'716 

TI— 5,  6,  99,  188,  203,  280,  306.  322,  470, 471,  472,  474,  475, 4T6,  478, 483,  489,  492,  493, 494 

questions  by 1—246, 504 


VI  INDEX. 

Conness,  John,  a  senator  from  California I — 11 

remarks  on  ttie  compftency  of  tlje  Presidettt^o  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 367,395 

orders  by —  ' 

that  Rule  XXI  bo  amended  to  allow  as  manj-  of  managers  and  counsel  to  Bpeak  on  final  argument 
as  choose,  four  days  to  each  side,  mauagers  to  open  and  close;  otfered  and  rejected,  (yeas,  19; 

nays,  27) -" 1—535 

that  hereaft-er  Senate  meet  at  eleven  a.  m.;  offered I — KJl 

adopted,  (yeas,  29 ;  nays,  14) ^ I — 633 

that  such  of  managers  and  counsel  as  choose  have  leave  to  file  arguments  before  April  24;  offered 

and  disagreed  to,  (yeas,  24;  nays,  25) II — 5 

prescribing  form  of  final  question  ;  offered II — 478 

remarks  by I— :J6, 161, 185,  207, 246, 247,  268,  276, 298,  325, 367,  370, 371, 414,  -162,  507,  514,  519,  SAi.  535.  589. 

611,  612,  628,  631,  63,3,  666,  673,  679,  699,  7i)6,  716 
II-3,  4,  5,  6, 8, 10, 11,  83,  84,  413,  469,  470,  471,  472,  473,  474,  476,  478,  481, 483,  484, 488, 492,  493,  494,  498 

question  by I — 727 

Convers  itions.     (Hvc  Ktidencc  ;   Testimony.) 

Corbett,  Henry  W.,  a  senator  from  Oregon I — 11 

order  by — 
that  tv^o  of  counsel  have  privilege  of  filing  written  or  making  an  oral  address,  &c.;  amendment 

offered II— 7 

withdrawn II — 8 

remarks  by II — 7,  8, 11 

Counsel  for  respondent I — 18, 19,  34 

Cox,  Walter  S.     (.See  Testimony.) 

Cragiu,  Aaron  II.,  a  senator  from  New  Hampshire I — 11 

remarks  by I — 673 

Creecy,  Charles  E.     (See  Tcstimoni/.) 

Curtis.  Benjamin  R.,  of  Massachusetts,  counsel I — 19 

motion  by — 

for  an  allowance  of  three  days  to  prepare  proofs;  offered I — 367.  369 

granted I — 371 

argument  by — 

on  application  for  forty  days  to  prepare  answer I — 20 

for  time  to  prepare  proofs I — 367,  369 

opening,  for  the  defence 1—377,390,397 

OH  admissibility — 

of  Adjutant  General  Thomas's  declarations  to  Mr.  Burleigh  February  21, 1868 1 — 198,  199 

of  President's  letter  to  General  Grant,  unaccompanied  with  enclosures I — 244 

of  telegrams  relating  to  the  reconstruction  of  Alabama I — 270,271,  272 

of  President's  message  to  Senate  February  24 1 — .537.  538 

of  extrac's  from  records  of  Navy  Department I — 562,  563,  564,  365,  566,  567,568 

of  employment  of  counsel  by  President  to  get  up  test  case 1^-602,  604 

of  President's  declarations  to  Secretary  Welles 1—669 

of  advice  to  President  by  cabinet  touching  constitutionality  of  tenure  of-ofUce  act. .  .1-7^77. 678,  689, 692 

U. 

Davis,  Garrett,  a  senator  from  Kentucky .• I — 11 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  a>j  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 363,  .366 

order  by — 
that  a  court  of  impeachment  can*ot  be  legally  formed  while  senators  from  certain  States  are 

excluded  :  offered  and  rejected,  (yeas.  2  ;   uay.s,  49) I — .36 

remarks  by 1—35,487,587,519,528.    11—249,282,469,482,485 

opinion  on  the  case  Ill — 156 

Dear,  Joseph  A.     (See  Testimony.) 
Declarations.     {Sni::  Evidence  ;  Testimony.) 

Dixon,  James,  a  senator  from  Connecticut I — 11 

remarks  Oil  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court III — 388,  389, 

390, 391,  392, 393, 394,  395,  396 
Documents.     (See  Evidence.) 

Doolittle,  James  II.,  a  senator  from  Wisconsin I — 34 

order  by— 

that  on  final  argument  managers  and  counsel  shall  alternate,  two  and  two;  managers  to  open  and 

close:  offered  and  indefinitely  postponed,  (yeas.  34  ;  nays,  15) I — .5.36 

remarks I— 23 J,  276,  486,  489, -535,436,  611,  632,  740,  741.     11—9,487,492,493 

opinion  on  the  case HI — 244 

Drake,  Charles  D.,  a  senator  from  Missouri I — 11 

remarks  ou  Uie  competeucy  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 380,  .389. 

•  390, 393 

orders  by — 

that  respondent  file  answer  ou  or  before  20th  March :  agreed  to,  (yeas,  28 ;  nays,  20) I — 35 

reconsidered,  (yeas,  27 ;  nays,  23) 1 — 35 

that  Chief  Justice  presiding  has  no  privilege  of  ruling  (juestions  of  law  ou  the  trial,  but  all  such 

questions  should  be  snliiiiitted  to  Senate  alone  :  offered  and  p-jccted,  (yeas.  20 ;  nays,  30) 1^186 

that  vot"S  upon  incidi-iital  questions  shall  be  without  a  divisiiJn,  unless  reciuested  by  ono-lifth  of 

members  present,  or  presiding  oflicer;   (amendment  to  Rule  VII,)  ottered I — 230 

agreed  to I — 277 

that  any  senator  shall  have  permission  to  tile  his  written  opinion  at  tho  time  of  giving  bis  vote : 

offered 11—476 

rejected,  (yeas,  12  ;    nays,  38) II — 477 

that  the  fi:teen  minutes  allowed  by  Rule  XXIII  shall  bo  for  the  whole  deliberation  ou  final  question, 

and  not  to  final  (juestiou  on  each  article  :  offered II — 474 

adopted II — 478 

remarks  by 1—33, 82,  M?5, 176,  179,  1 86, 207,  208, 209.  230, 247, 255, 276,  S77, 278, 280, 298,  325,  336,  42t),  480, 

485,  489,  490,  497,  508,  518,  519,  521),  .529,  533,  535,  536,  545,  605,  634.  680,  693,  696 

11—84,  188,  472,  474,  476,  477,  484, 487,  491,  497,  498 

question  by 1—533 


INDEX.  VII 


Edmunds,  George  F.,  a  senator  from  Vermont I — 17 

orders  by — 
that  answer  be  tiled  April  1,  replication  three  days  thereafter,  and  the  matter  stand  for  trial  April  6, 

1 SG8  :  oifered 1—24 

that  when  the  doors  shall  bo  closed  for  deliberation  upon  final  question,  the  official  reporters ^shall 

take  down  debates  to  be  reported  in  proceedings:  oifered IF — 141 

not  iudttiuitely  postponed,  (yeas  20,  nays  HI) 11 — 188 

read 11—218,471 

tabled,  (yeaa  28,  nays  20) U— 474 

that  the  standing  order  of  thu  Senate,  that  it  will  proceed  at  twelve  o'clock  noon  to-morrow  to  vote 

on  the  articles,  be  rescinded— [J/ai/  11,  ISCB  :J  offered .' 11—482 

agreed  to II — 483 

that  the  Senate  now  proceed  to  vote  upon  the  articles,  according  to  the  rides  of  the  Senate  offered 

May  16 11—485 

agreed  to 11 — 48t) 

remarks  by 1-24,85,86,208,211,277,336,390,451,519,534,5:37,566,597,680,741 

II— 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 141, 188,  218,  268, 471, 474,  475, 476,  479,  482,  483,  484,  485, 490,  493 

questions  by I — 566,  597 

opinion  on  the  case .•. Ill — 82 

Emory,  William  H.     (See  Testimony.) 

Evarts,  William  M.,  of  New  York,  counsel I — B 

motions  by —  ^ 

that  after  replication  filed,  counsel  be  allowed  reasonable  time  to  prepare  for  trial:  offered I — 83 

for  an  adjournment  in  consequence  of  illness  of  Mr.  Stanbery ; I — 533 

argument  by — 

on  application  for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial I — 68,  71 

on  authority  of  Chief  Justice  to  decide  questions  of  evidence I — 184 

on  right  of  counsel  to  renew  examination  of  a  witness  recalled  by  court I — 522,524,  526 

on  admissibility — 

of  Adjutant  General  Thomas's  declarations  to  Mr.  Burleigh,  February  21,  1868 1 — 206,  207 

to  clerks  of  War  Departuient I — 212 

of  President's  letter  to  General  Grant,  unaccompanied  with  enclosures I — 244,245 

of  appointment  of  Edmund  Cooper  to  be  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury I — ^258, 263, 264 

of  telegrams  relating  to  the  reconstruction  of  Alabama 1—270,271,272,  273 

of  Chronicle's  report  of  President's  speech  in  reply  to  Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson I — 286,288,289 

of  Leader's  report  of  President's  speech  at  Cleveland I — 322,323,324 

of  President's  declarations  to  Adjutant  Genera!  Thomas,  February  21 1 — 424 

prior  to  March  9 1—429,  430 

of  President's  conversations  with  General  Sherman,  January  14 1 — 470,4(75 

of  tender  of  War  Office  to  General  Sherman I — 482,  484 

of  question  Whether  General  Sherman  gave  President  an  opinion,  &.c I — .'501,504,506 

of  affidavit  and  warrant  of  arre.st  of  Lorenzo  Thomas I — 510,511,514 

of  President's  message  to  Senate,  February  24 1 — 538,539,542,  543 

of  extracts  from  records  of  Navy  Department I— .566,  566 

of  employment  of  counsel  by  President  to  get  up  test  case I — 598,  603 

of  President's  declaration  to  Mr.  Perrin I — 625,  626,  627 

to  Secretary  Welles 1—668,  672,  673 

of  advice  to  President  by  his  cabinet  touching  constitutionality  of  tenure-of-office  act I — 676,678 

touching  construction  of  tenure-of-office  act I — 694,  696 

of  cabinet  consultations  in  regard  to  obtaining  a  judicial  decision,  &c 1—699 

of  papers  in  Mr.  Blodgett's  case 1—722,  723,  724, 725 

final,  on  the  case 11—269,  284,  308,.  336 

remarks  announcing  dlness  of  Mr.  Stanbery I — 533,  590,  716 

on  order  in  regard  to  limiting  argument  on  final  question I — 497,  534.    II — 7,  9 

on  application  for  adjournment I — 628,  629,631 

Evidence,  question,  Wliether  objections  to,  should  be  decided  by  Chief  Justice,  or,  in  first  instance,  sub- 
mitted to  Senate— [^i/  Mr.  Drake] 1—175,179 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Butler 1—176,177,181,184 

Manager  Bingham '. 1—180, 181, 183 

Manager  Boutwell 1—181,184 

Mr.  Evarts 1—184 

presiding  officer  may  rule  all  questions  of,  which  ruling  shall  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  Senate, 
unless  a  vote  be  asked,  &c. ;  or  he  may,  in  first  insiance,  submit  such  questions  to  Senate—  [Btf 

Mr.  Henderson] — offered;  I — 185:  agreed  to ;  (yeas  31,  nays  19) I — 186 

sdmi8t#3ility  of — 
declarations  of  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  February  21,  as  to  the  means  by  which  lie  intended  to 

obtain  possession  of  War  Department :  (objected  to  by  Mr.  Stanbertj) ' i — ^175,188 

discussed  by — 

ManagerButler I— 187, 192, 193;  195,207 

Mr.  Stanbery 1—188, 192, 193, 195,  206,  207 

BI  r.  Curt  is 1—198,  )  99 

Manager  Bingham I— 2U2, 206 

Mr.  Evarts I— 266,207 

admitted ;  (yeas  39,  nays  11) 1—209 

declarations  of  Adjutant  General  Thomas  to  clerks  of  War  Department,  antecedent  to  his  appoint- 
ment as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  as  to  his  intention  when  he  came  in  command  :  (objected 

to  by  Mr.  Evarts) ♦ 1—212 

discussed  by — 

Mr.  Evarts P— 21'2 

Manager  Butler - I — 212 

Manager  Bingham -.1 — 213 

admitted;   (yeas  28,  nays 22) 1—214 

letter  of  President  to  General  Grant,  February  10,  1868,  unaccompanied  by  other  letters  referred  - 

to  therein :  (objected  to  by  Mr.  Stanbery) ...1—243 


VIII  INDEX. 

Evideuce,  admissibility  of — 

PresideDi's  letter  to  General  Grant— Continue<1. 

di«cus!4ed  by — 

JI r.  Stan biry 1—044,  245 

Manager  WSson I — 24'1,246 

Mr.  Evarts I— -'44,  '-46 

Manager  Bingham 1 — 244 

Mr.  Curtis 1—244 

objection  not  sustained:  (yeas  20,  nays  29) I — 247 

appointment  of    Edmund    Cooper,   private   secretary  of   President,    as  Assistant    Secretary  of 

Treasury:  (objected  to  by  Mr.  Evarts) 1—258 

discussed  by — 

Mr.  Evarts 1—258,263,264 

Manager  Butler I— 259,  260, 2a3,  264, 265 

Mr.  Stanbcry 1—260,261,262,264 

Manager  Bingliam I — 262 

not  received  ;   (yeas  22,  nays  27) I — 268 

telegrams  between  President  and  Levcis  E.  Parsons,  January  17,  1967.  in  relation  to  constitutional 

amenlment  and  reconstruction  of  Alabama  :  (objected  to  by  Mr.  Slanbery) I — 270 

disi'tissid  by —  , 

Manager'lJutlcr 1—270,271,272,273,275,276 

M r.  Evarts I — 270,  271,  272,  273 

Mr.  Stanbery , 1—270 

Mr.  Curtis 1—270, 271,  272 

Manager  Bout  well 1 — 274 

admitted ;  (yeas  27,  nays  17) I — 276 

Clirouicle's  report  of  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866,  in  reply  to  Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson  : 

(objected  to  by  Mr.  Evarts) 1—286 

discussed  by — 

Mr.  Evarts I — 286, 288,  289 

Manager  Butler 1—286,289,297,301 

withdrawn I — 301 

Leader's  report  of  President's  speech  at  Cleveland,  September  3, 1866 :  (objected  to  by  Mr.  Evarts).! — 322 

discussed  by — 

M r.  Evarts 1-3-22,  323, 324 

Manager  Butler 1—322, 323,  324 

adiaitted  ;  (yeas  .35,  nays  11) 1—325 

declar;itions  of  President  lo  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  February  21,  1868,  after  order  for  removal 

of  Mr.  Stanton,  to  show  an  absence  of  purpose  to  use  force ;  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler..! — 420 

discussed  by — 

Manager'Butler I — 420, 421, 422 

Mr.  Stanbery 1—421 

Mr.  Evarts .' 1—424 

Manager  Biugham I — 425 

admitted;  (yeas  42,  nays  10,) ...1—426 

declarations  of  President  to  Adjutant  General  Thomas  prior  to  9th  March,  in  respect  to  use  of  force 

to  get  possession  of  the  War  Office  ;  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 129 

discussed  by — 

M  ana  ger  Butler I — 429,  430 

Mr.  Evarts I — 429,  430 

Manager  Bingham 1—430 

admit  ted 1—430 

conversations  between  President  and  Lieutenant  General  Sherman,  January  14,  1868,  in  regard  to 

removal  of  Mr.  Stanton;  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) 1—462 

discussed  by — 

Mr.  Stanbery I— 462, 403,  46.'),  468, 469,  471, 472 

Manager  Butler 1-462,463,465,468,469,470,471,472,473,475,479 

Mr.  Evarts 1—470,475 

Manager  Wilson 1 — 478,479 

not  admitted,  (yeas  23,  nay.>(  28) 1-481 

question  in  regard  to  creation  of  department  of  the  Atlantic  ;  (objected  to  by  Manager  Buller) I — 481 

discussed  by — 

Manager  But ler 1—481, 482 

Mr.  Stanbery I — 481, 482 

not  admitted 1—482 

tender  to  fJeneral  Sherman  of  appointment  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim;  (objected  to  hy  Man- 
ager Batlcr) ».I— 482 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Butlor 1—482, 483 

Mr.  Evarts 1—482 

Mr.  Stanbery I — 482 

admitted I — 183 

question,  Whetberat  the  first  offer  of  War  Office  to  General  Sherman  anything  further  passed  in 

reference  to  the  tender  or  acceptance  of  it ;  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 484 

discussed  by — 

JIauagorlJutler 1—484 

M  r.  E  vart  s 1—484 

npt  admitted,  (yens  23,  nays  29) 1-485 

President's  d^'claration  of  i)urpose  of  getting  Mr.  Stanton's  right  to  office  before  the  courts;  (objected 

to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 485 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Butler I — 185,  486 

Mr.  St anbery 1 — 485 

Mr.  Evarts I— 4f 6 

not  ailmitted,  (3'eas  7,  nays  44) I — 487 

Presid.  Ill's  declaration  of  purpose  in  tendering  General  Sherman  the  appointment  of  Secretary  of 

War  nd  interim  ;  (objected  to  bv  Manager  Bingliam) I — 488 

not  admitted,  (y«w  25,  nays  27) . ." 1—489 


INDEX.  '  l!s 


Evidf'Bce,  admissibility  of — Continued. 

Prttidtut's  dfcliiratious  to  General  Sbernian  in  reference  to  use  of  threats  or  force  to  pet  possession 

of  the  War  Office  ;  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) , I — 489 

not  admitted 1—490 

question,  Whether  General  Sherman  gave  President  an  opinion  88  to  advisability  of  a  change  in  the 

War  Department ;  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 498 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Bingham 1—498,  505,  SCO 

Mr.  Stanbery 1—499,501,51)1 

Manager  Butler I— oUO,  501,  504 

Mr.  Evarts 1—501,504,500 

not  admitted,  (yeas  15.  nays  3.)) I — 507 

advice  to  President  to  appoint  .some  person  in  place  of  Mr.  Stanton :  (objected  toby  Manager  Butler) . .  .1 — .507 

not  admitted,  (yeas  18,  nays  32) 1—508 

affidavit  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton  and  warrant  of  arrest  of  Lorenzo  Thomas :  (objected  to  by  Manager 

Butler) - 1—510 

discussed  by — 

Manager  "Butler 1—510,511,512,513,514 

Mr.  Evarts 1-510,511,5)4 

Mr.  Stanbery .' , '. 1—512,513,514 

admitted  ;   (yeas  34,  nays  17) I — 515 

qnestiou.  Whether  President  stated  to  General  Sherman  his  purpose  in  tendering  him  the  office  of 

Secretary  of  War  ad  interim:  (objected  lo  by  Manager  Bingham) I — 517 

admitted  ;   (yeas  26,  nays  22) I — 5 18 

President's  declaration  of  purpose  in  tendering  General  Sherman  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad 

interim  :  (objected  to  by  Manager  Bingham) I — 518 

admitted;  (yeas  26,  nays  25) I — 520 

message  of  President  to  Senate,  February  24,  1868,  in  response  to  Senate  resolution  of  February  21, 

1808:  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) - 1—536 

discus.sed  by — 

Manager  Butler 1—538,539,540,541,542,543 

Mr.  Curtis 1—537,  538 

Mr.  Evarts 1—538,539,542,543 

Manager  Bingham I — 540,  541,  542,  543 

not  admitted I — 544 

extracts  from  records  of  Navy  Department,  exhibiting  practice  in  respect  to  removals :  (objected  to 

by  Manager  Butler) ■ I — 561 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Butler  .     1-561,562,563,564,565,5(10 

Mr.  C  urtis 1—562,  563,  564,  565,  566,  567,  568 

Mr.  Evarts 1—566,568 

Manager  Boutwell I — 567 

admitted;  (yeas  36,  nays  15) I — 5ii8 

employment  of  counsel  by  President  to  raise  question  of  Mr.  Stanton's  right  to  hold  the  office  of 

Secretary  of  War  against  authority  of  President :  (object-ed  to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 597 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Butler 1—597,  600,  6' I4 

Mr.  Evarta I— ."-98, 603 

M  r.  Curt  is 1—602,  604 

Manager  Wilson I — 602 

admitted  ;  (yeas  29,  nays  21) I — 605 

acts  toward  getting  out  Aairas  •  o/yiis  in  the  case  of  Lorenzo  Thomas:  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler)! — 608 

admitted ;   (yeas  27,  nays  23) 1-609 

acts,  after  failure  to  obtain  habeas  corpii$,  in  pursuance  of  President's  instructions  to  test  the  right  of 

Mr.  Stanton  to  continue  in  office  :   (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 610 

admitted ;  (yeas  27,  nays  23) I — 612 

declarations  of  President  to  Mr.  Perrin,  February  21.  1868,  in  reference  to  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton, 

and  nomination  of  a  successor :  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) 1 — 625 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Butler I — 625,  627 

Mr.  Evarts 1—625,626,627 

Manager  Wilson I — 626 

not  admitted;   (yeas  9,  nays  37) I — 628 

President's  declarations  to  Secretary  Welle.s,  February  21,  in  relation  to  removal  of  Mr.   Stanton : 

(objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 667 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Butler I — 667,  671 

Mr.  Evarts 1—668, 672,  673 

Mr.  Curtis 1—669 

admitted ;  (yeas  26,  nays  23) 1—674 

advice  to  President  by  cabinet  touching  constitutionality  of  tenure-of-office  act :    (objected  to  by 

Ma  n  ager  Butler) : I — 676 

discussed  by 

Manager  Butler ^ 1—676,677,678 

Mr.  Evarts 1—676,678 

Mr.  Curtis 1—677,678,689,692 

Manager  Wilson 1 — 68 1 

not  admitted;  (yeas  20,  nays  29) ;■-• I — 693 

advice  to  President  by  cabinet  in  regard  to  construction  of  tenure-of-office  act,  and  its  application  to 

Secretaries  appointed  by  President  Lincoln;  (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 694 

discussed  by — 

Mr.  Evarts 1—694.696 

Manager  Butler 1—694,695 

not  admitted ;  (yeas  22,  nays  26) . . .' 1—697 

cabinet  consultations  in  regard  to  obtaining  a  judicial  decision  on  constitutionality  of  tenure-of-office 

act ;   (objected  to  by  Manager  Butler) 1—698 

discussed  by —  < 

Manager  Butler 1—698,609 

Mr.  Evarts 1—699 

not  admitted;  (yeas  19,  nays  30) 1—700 


X  INDEX. 

Evidence,  iidinisisibi'lity  of — Continued. 

question,  Whether  any  sntrfrestions  were  made  in  cabinet  looking  to  the  vacation  of  any  office  by 

force;   (obji-cted  to  by  Manager  Butler) I — 700 

not  adraittL-d ;   (yeas  18,  nay.i  V-'fi) I — 701 

opinions  (.-iven  to  President  by  cabinet  on  question,  Whether  the  Secretaries  appointed  by  President 

Lincoln  were  within  tlie  provisiona  of  tenure-of-oftice  act ;  (objected  to  by  ilanager  Bingham)  .1 — 71.') 

not  admitted ;  (yens  -'0.  nays  26) .- I — 716 

answer  of  Foster  Ulodgett  to  Postmaster  General's  notice  of  his  suspension  from  the  office  of  post- 
master at  Augusta,  Ua.;   (objected  to  by  Mr.  Evarts) ,. •. I — 722 

discussed  bv — 

Jlr.  Kvafts 1—7-22,  72:?,  724,  725 

Mauajrer  IJutler 1—722,  723,  724.  72.5 

not  admitted I — 726 

nomiuutioiis  of  Lieutenant  Cieneral  Sherman,  February  13,  18G8,  and  of  Major  General  George  H. 

Thomas,  February  21,  1861 ,  to  be  Generals  by  brevet ;  (objected  to  by  Mr.  Evans) I — 736 

not  admitted;   (yeas  14,  nays  3.)) I — ~'3S 

Evidence,  documentary,  for  the  prosecution — 

copy  of  oath  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  April  15,  1865,  with  accompapying 

certiticates -. I — 147 

copy  of  President  Lincoln's  message  to  Senate.  January  13,  1662,  nominating  Edwin  51.  Stanton  to  be 

Secretary  of  War ." I — 148 

copy  of  Senate  resolution  in  executive  session,  January  15,  1862,  consenting  to  appointment  of  Edwin 
M.  Stanton  to  be  Secretary  of  War 1—148 

copy  of  President's  mes.sage  to  Senate,  December  12,  1867.  announcing  suspension  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton 
from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  and  designation  of  General  Grant  as  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim I — 148 

copy  of  Senate  resolution,  January  13,  1868,  in  response  to  message  of  President  announcing  suspen- 
sion of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  and  non-concurring  in  such  suspension I — 155 

copy  of  Senate  order,  January  13,  1868,  directing  Secretary  to  communicate  copy  of  non-concuriing 

resolution  to  President,  to  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  and  to  U.  S.  Grant,  Secretary  of  War  nd  iiuerim I — 155 

copy  of  Presid.  nt's  message  to  Senate,  Februaiy  21,  1868,  announcing  removal  of  Edwin  JI.  Stanton 

from  office,  and  designation  of  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  army  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim..! — 156 

copy  of  President's  order,  February  21, 1868,  removing  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  the  ofKce  of  Secretary 

of  War 1—156 

copy  of  President's  letter  of  authority  to  Lorenzo  Thomas,  February  21,  1868,  to  act  as  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim,  and  directing  him  immediately  to  enter  upon  duties I — 156 

copy  of  Senate  resolution,  February  21,  1868,  that  President  has  no  power  to  remove  the  Secretary 

of  War  and  to  designate  any  other  officer  to  perform  duties  of  that  oflice  ad  interim I — 157 

copy  of  Senate  order,  February  21,  1868,  directing  Secretary  to  communicate  copies  of  foregoing 
resolution  to  President,  to  Secretary  of  War,  and  to  Adjutant  General  of  the  army I — 157 

copy  of  President  Lincoln's  commission  to  Edwin  M.  Stanton  as  Secretary  of  War,  January  15,  1862.1 — 157 

coiBmission  of  Edmund  Cooper  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  Treasury,  November  20,  1867 1 — 163 

letter  of  authority  to  Edmund  Cooper,  December  2,  1867,  to  act  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  Treasury.. I — 164 

copy  of  General  Orders  No.  15,  March  12,  1868,  requiring  all  orders   relating  to  military  operations 

issued  In'  Presidcntor  Secretary  of  War  to  be  isstied  through  General  of   the  army I — 2.37 

copy  of  Brevet  Major  General  W.  H.  Emory's  commission,  July  17,  1866 1—239 

Spi-cial  Orderi*  No.  426,  August  27,  1867,  assigning  General  Emory  to  command  of   department    of 

Washington I — 240 

order  of  President,  February  13,  1868,  that  Brevet  Major  General  Thomas  resume  duties  as  Adjutant 
General 1—240 

letter  of  General  Grant,  January  24,  1868.  requesting  to  have  in  writing  order  given  him  verbally  by 

President  to  disregard  oi'ders  of  E.  M.  Stanton  as  Secretary  of  War,  &c I — 240 

President's  ijistructious  to  General  Grant,  January  29,  lSft8,  not  to  obey  orders  from  War  Depart- 
ment, unless,  &c 1—240 

letter  of  President  to  General  Grant,  February  10,  1868,  in  regard  to  his  having  vacated  the  office  of 

Secretary  of  War  ad  interim 1 1 — 241 

copy  of  President's  letter  of  authority  to  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  act  as  Secretary  of  AV'ar  ad  interim...! — 248 

copies  of  order  removing  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  and  letter  of  authority  to  General  Thomas  with  indorse- 
ments thereon,  forwanlid  by  l'i-c-sideut  to  Secretary  of  Treasury  for  his  informatioH I — 248,249 

copy  of  General  Orders  No.  17,  March  14,  1867,  requiring  all  orders  relating  to  military  operations  to 

be  issued  through  General  of   the  army I — 249 

copy  of  order  of  General  of  army  to   General  Thomas  to  resume  duties  as  Adjutant  General I— 25() 

message  of  President  connnunicatiug  report  of  Secretary  of  State,  showing  proceedings  under  concur- 
rent resolution  of  the  two  houses  requesting  President  to  submit  to  legislatures  of  States  an  addi- 
tional articU^  to  the  Constituliou I — 278 

report  of  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866,  in  reply  to  Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson,  as  sworn  to  by 

Francis  II.  Smith 1—298 

report  of  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866,  revised  by  William  G.  Moore,  bis  secretary I — 301 

ut  Cleviland,  September  3,  1866,  in  Cleveland  Leader ' I — 325 

M  Cleveland,  September  3,  18t)6,  by  D.  C.   McEwcn..' 1—328 

at  Cleveland,  Siptember  3,  1866,  in  Clevtland  Her.. Id  I— :J33 

at  St.  Louis,  Septembers,  18(i6,  in  Misi-ouri  Democrat 1—340 

at  St.  Louis,  Septembers,  1866,  in  St.  Louis  Times 1—348 

forms  of  various  commissions  as  issued  by  Presiilent  before  and  after  passage  of  civil-tennro  act I — 353 

list  of  removals  of  heads  ol    departments  at  any  time  by  President  during  session  of  Senate I — ;J5S 

list  of  appointments  of  heads  of  departments  at  any  tiiiio  by  President  without  advice  and  consent  of 

Senate  and  while  Senate  was  in  session I — 358 

corresiiondeiice  between  President  John  Adams  and  Timothy  Pickering,  May  1800,  relating  to  re- 
moval of  Mr.  Pickering  from  oflice  of  Secretary  of  State I — 362 

copy  of  President  John  Adams's  message.  May  12,  1800,  nominating  John  Marshall  to  be  Secretary 

of  State  in  place  of  Timothy  Pickering  removed,  and  aclion  of  Senate  thereon I — 365 

letter  from  President,  August  14,  18(17.  nolif'yiug  Secretary  of  Treasury,  "  in  compliance  with  re- 
quirements" of  teuure-of-oflice  act,  of  suspension  of  Edwin  .M.Stanton I — 364 

letter  of  Secretary  of  Treasury,  August   I;"),  1867,  notifying  heads  of  bureaus,   in   compliance  with 

requirements  of  t^'nure-of-ottice  act,  of  suspension  of  Kdwin  M.Stanton   I — 366 

executive  messages  of  President  communicating  infornmuon  of  suspension  of  several  officers I — 369 

communication  from  Secretary,  of  Slate,  December  19,  1867.  reporting  to  President,  in  compliance 
with  provisions  of  teuure-of-oflice  act,  the  suspeubiou  of  the  consul  at  Brumu,  Borneo I — 369 


INDEX.  XI 

Evidence  docnment.ary,  for  the  proseoutioii — Continued, 
copy  of  letter  from  Adjutiint  General  Thomas  to  President,  February  21,  1868,  reporting  delivery  of 
President's  coramunicatiou  to  Edwin  M.  Stantou  removing  him  from  otfico,  and  accepting  appoint- 
ment of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim 1—376 

Evidi'uce,  documeutarj',  for  the  defence  — 

affidavit  of  Edwiu  M.  Stanton,  and  warrant  of  arrest  of  Lorenzo  Thomas,  February  22, 1868 1 — 515 

docket  of  entries  as  to  disposition  of  case  of  United  States  vs.  Lorenzo  Thomas I — 5Sl 

President's  nomination  of  Thomas  Ewinpr,  sen.,  to  be  Secretary  of  War,  February  22,  18G8 1 — 537 

copy  of  Senate  proceedings.  May  13,  1800,  on  nomination  of  John  Marshall  to  be  Secretary  of  State, 

in  place  of  IMmothy  Picl^ering,  removed I — 555 

copy  of  President   Tyler's  order,  February  29,  18-14,  appointing  John  Nelson,  Attorney  General,  to 

discharge  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  ad  interim I — 557 

copy  of  Senate  resolution,  March  6,  1814,  confirming  nomination  of  John  C.  Calhoun  as  Secretary  of 

State,  vice  A.  P.  Upshur 1—558 

copy  of  President  Fillmore's  order,  July  23,  1859,  designating  Winfliold  Scott  to  act  as  Secretary  of 

War  ad  in  terim I — 558 

copy  of  Senate  resolution,  August  15,  1850,  confirming  nomination  of  Charles  M.  Conrad  as  Secretary 

of  War 1—558 

copy  of  President  Buchanan's  order,  January  10,  1861,  appointing  Moses  Kelley  to  be  Acting  Secretary 

of  Interior I — 559 

copy  of  President  Lincoln's  commission,' March  5,  1861,  to  Caleb  B.  Smith  as  Secretary  of  Interior  ..I — 559 
copy  of  letters  of  Acting  Secretary  of  Treasury,  August  17,  1843,  relating  to  removal  of  collector  and 

appraiser  in  Philadelphia I — 560 

extracts  from  records  of  Navy  Department  exhibiting  practice  in  respect  to  removals I — 569 

list  of  civil  officers  of  Navy  Department,  appointed  for  four  j-ears  under  act  of  May  15,  1829,  and 

removable  at  pleasure,  who  were  removed,  their  terms  not  having  expired I — 573 

copies  of  documents  from  State  Department,  showing  practice  of  government  in  removal  of  officers 

during  session  of  Senate,  during  recess,  and  covering  all  cases  of  vacancy I — 574,590 

copies  of  documents  from  Post  Office  Department,  showing  removals  of  postmasters  during  session  of 

Senate  and  ad  interim  appsiutments I — 581 

message  of  President  Buchanan,  Jnuuary  15,  1861,  in  answer  to  Senate  resolution  respecting  vacancy 

in  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War ■. I — 583 

list  of  persons  who  discharged  duties  of  cabinet  officers,  whether  by  appointment  made  in  recess  and 

those  continued  by  Senate,  as  well  as  those  acting  ad  interim,  or  simply  acting I — 585 

statement  of  beginning  and  ending  of  each  legislative  session  of  Congress  from  1789  to  1868 1 — 594 

statement  of  beginning  and  ending  of  each  special  session  of  Senate  Irom  1789  to  1868 1 — 595 

copy  of  President  Adams's coiiniission  to  George  Washington,  July  4,  1798,  constituting  him  Lieutenant 

General  of  the  army ' I — 653 

tables  from  Department  of  Interior,  showing  removals  of  -fficers,  date,  name,  office,  and  whether 

removal  w;is  during  recess  or  during  session  of  Senate I 654 

list  of  consular  officers  appointed  during  session  of  Senate  where  vacaucies  existed  when  appointments 

were  made I — 663 

form  of  nas'y  agent's  commission I — 705 

official  action  of  Post  Office  Department  in  removal  of  Foster  Blodgett 1—709 

Evidence,  documentary,  for  the  prosecution,  in  rebuttal — 
Journal  of  first  Congress,  177-J-'7,5,  exhibiting  report  of  committee  to  draft  commission  to  General 

George  Washington I — 718 

letter  of  James  Guthrie,  Secretary  of  Treasury,  Augu.st  23,  1855,  as  to  practice  of  government  in 

appointing  officers  during  recess  to  fill  vacancies  existing  before  adjournment I — ^719 

copy  of  indictment  in  case  of  Foster  Blodgett  in  district  court  of  United  States  for  southern  district  of 

Georgia I — 720 

list  of  the  various  officers  in  United  States  affected  by  President's  claim  of  right  to  remove  at  pleasure 

and  appoint  ad  interim,  their  salaries,  &c I — 729 

Ewiug,  Thomas,  sen.,  nomination  of,  to  be  Secretary  of  War 1—508,516,537,555,556 

F. 

Ferry,  Orris  S.,  a  senator  from  Connecticut I — 11 

orders  by — 
that  the  hour  of  meeting  be  at  11  a.  m.,  and  that  there  be  a  recess  of  thirty  minutes  each  day  at  2 

p.  m.  :  offered  and  rejected,  (yeas  24,  nays  26) I — 536 

that  tabular  statements  presented  by  Manager  Butler  be  omitted  from  published  proceedings: 

offend 1—633 

adopted 1—634 

remarks  by 1-186,187,336,536,602,632,633,701,716.     11—4,495.    111—394 

question  by I — 602 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 121 

Ferrj-,  Thomas  W.     (.See  Testimony.) 

Fessendeu,  William  P.,  a  senator  from  Maine I — 11 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  PreaiAent  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  aniembirof  the  court.  .Ill — 366,  367,  394,401 

remarks  by 1—176,266,267,268,336,478,479.    11—6,7,195,469,473,483,485 

questions  by 1—267,268 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 16 

Fowler,  Joseph  S.,  a  senator  from  Tennessee I — 11 

remarks  by I — 175,  276.     11—7 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 193 

Frelinghuysen,  Frederick  T.,  a  senator  from  New  Jersey I — H 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  ji?ro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 380,385 

order  by — 
that  as  many  of  managers  and  counsel  as  shall  choose  be  permitted  to  speak  on  final  argument, 

offered  and  laid  over I — 451 

discussed I — 491 

modified I — 495 

tabled,  (yeas  38,  nays  10) 1—498 

remarks  by 1—188,451,491,495.     11—13,474 

question  by 1—188 

opinion  ou  the  case m — 208 


Xn  INDEX. 

O. 

Grimes.  James  W..  a  senator  from  Iowa I — II 

remarkH  on  the  competency  of  tht-  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court III — Gt"^,  3i)-i,  401 

order  by — 
that  ht-reafter  the  hour  of  meeting  shall  be  12  o'clock  m.  each  day,  except  Sunday : 

offered 11—99 

adopted,  (yeas  21,  nays  13) II — 141 

remarks  by 1—17,  78,  179, 298, 315, 6C8, 701,  709.    II— €,  8, 13, 99, 217, 268,  322, 360,  469.  4So 

question  by I — 315 

opinion  on  the  case  UI — 308 

Groesbeck,  William  S. ,  of  Ohio,  counsel I — 34 

argument,  linal,  on  the  case II — 189 

H. 

arlan,  James,  a  senator  from  Iowa I — 11 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — "33 

Heuderi»oii.  John  B.,  a  senator  from  Missouri I — U 

orders  by — 

that  application  for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial  be  postponed  until  after  replication  filed :  offered 

and  not  a.sroed  to,  (yeas  25.  nays  28) , I — 81 

that  presiding  officer  may  rule  all  questions  of  evidence,  which  ruling  shall  stand  as  the  judgment 
of  the  Senate,  unless  some  member  shall  ask  a  formal  vote,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  submitted  to 
the  .Senate ;  or  he  may  submit  any  such  question  to  a  vote  in  the  first  instance,  (amendment  to 
Rule  VII :) 

offered 1—185 

agreed  to,  (yeas  31,  nays  19) I — 186 

that,  subject  to  Rule  XXI,  all  managers  not  delivering  oral  arguments  may  file  written  arguments 
before  April  24,  and  counsel  notmakingoralargumentsmay  file  written  arguments  before  April  27: 

offered II— 8 

remarks  by 1—81, 185, 247,  265,  266,  450,  488,  529,  530,  699.     II— 8,  9, 10, 11,  336,  Am,  491,  494 

questions  by I— 265,  529.  t;L»9 

opinion  on  the  case ." lU — 295 

Hendri-ks,  Thomas  A.,  a  senator  from  Indiana I — U 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President />ro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 3t)(),  364, 

392,  399,  401 
order  by — 

that  trial  proceed  with  all  convenient  despatch  :  amendment  offered  and  agreed  to I — 86 

prescribing  form  of  final  question  :  offered II — l^;  8 

remarks  by 1—86,  18C,  231,  565,  633.    11—13, 282, 283,  473, 474,  478,  483, 484,  487, 488,  489 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 95 

Hour  of  meeting,  order  fixing,  at  11  a.  m. — [By  Mr.  Coiiness.] 

offered 1—631 

adopted,  (yeas  29,  nays  14) 1—633 

ordi  r  fixing,  at  12  o'clock  m.  each  day,  except  Sunday — [By  Mr.  Grimes.  \ 

offered 11—99 

adopted,  (yeas  21,  nays  13) II — 141 

Howard,  Jacob  M. ,  a  senator  from  Michigan I — 1 1 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 361,  367, 

382, 383, 388, 389,  390,  392,  393, 401 
orders  by — 
(in  Senate.)  that  the  message  of  the  House,  relating  to  the  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  bo 

referred  to  a  select  commit te  of  seven,  to  cocisider  and  report  thereon;  agreed  to I — 5 

(in  Senate.)  that  the  Senate  will  take  proper  action  on  the  message  of  the  House  in  relation  to  the 

impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson  :  reported  and  agreed  to I — 6 

(in  Senate,)  that  at  1  o'clock  to-morrow  ulteruoon,  the  Senate  will  proceed  to  consider  the  impeach- 
ment of  Andrew  Johnson,  &c. :  agreed  to  March  4 I — 9 

that  a  summons  do  issue  to  Andrew  Johnson,  returnable  on  Friday,  March  13,  at  1  o'clock  p.  m. : 

adopted I— 16 

that  no  senator  shall  speak  more  than   once,  nor  to  exceed  15  minutes  on  one  question,  during  final 

deliberations  :  offered  and  rejected,  i^yvus  19,  nays  30) II — 218 

remarks  by-  .1—5,  9, 12,  16,  17,  31, '36,  69.  77,  78.  83, 160,  180, 188, 214, 23.5, 265, 276,  321,  33.5,  346, 367, 370,  451,  486, 
497.  514,  530,  5ti6, 606,  612,  673, 680, 693,  716, 738.     H— 5,  10,  14, 218, 219, 282,  389,  446,  472, 48.":,  108 

questions  by 1—276,  530,  566,  680 

opinion  on  the  case UI — :i\. 

Howe,  Timothy  O.,  a  senator  from  Wisconsin I — 1 1 

remarks  on  the  competencj'  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  n  member  of  the  court Ill — .380 

remarks  by 1—36,  490,  508,  520,  533,  608,  611,  740.     11—12,  282, 283, 475 

opinion  on  ihe  case HI — 58 

Hudson,  William  N.     (See  Testimony.) 

I. 

Impeachable  crimes,  definition  of 1—88, 123, 147,476.     11—086.     Ill— .3.55 

Impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States — 

resolution  (in  House)  providing  for  the,  [By  Mr.  Comide,  i!"«6.  21,  1868:]  referred T — I 

reported I — 1 

adopted,  (yeas  1 26,  nays  47) 1— -3 

Committee  (in  House)  to  comronnicate  to  Seuato  its  action  directing  an — 

ordered I — 2 

appointed I — 3 

appear  at  bar  of  Senate I — 5 

report  to  House 1 — 3 

Committee  (in  House)  to  prepare  articles  of — 

ordered I — 2 

appointed 1—3 

report  of 1—3,  4,  6 


INDEX.  XIII 

Impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson— Continued, 
order  (in  House)  limiting  dct)ate,  aud  directing  proceediugH  when  articles  of,  are  reported  to  House — 

adopted,  (yeas  lOti,  nays  37) 1—3 

managers  elected  and  Senate  notified I — 1 

direeted  to  carrj-  articles  to  Senate I — 4 

House  informed  that  Senate  is  ready  to  receive I — t 

House  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  attend I — 4 

appear  at  bar  of  the  Senate  with  articles I — 6 

demand  that  the  Senate  take  process,  &c I — 16 

•BTticles  of I — 6 

rules  of  procedure  on  the  trial  of I — 6,  13 

answer  of  respondent I — :37 

replication I — 8  i 

opening  arguments I — 67,  377 

evidence 1 — 147,  4 1 .5 

arguments II — 14-447 

final  vote U— 486,  487,  496,  497 

opinions Ill 

J. 

Johnson,  Andrew,  President  of  the  United  States — 

articles  of  impeachment I — 6 

summons  issued  to I — 1 6 

returned .«-   I — 18 

called  by  proclamation I — 18 

appearance  entered  and  counsel  named I — 19 

forty  days  asked  to  prepare  answer 1 — 19 

answer  to  articles - -- I — 37 

oath  of  office,  April  15,1865 t— 147 

suspension  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  and  designation  of  General  Grant  Secretary  ad 

interim  communicated  to  Senate  December  12,  1867 I—  148 

Senate's  non-coucurrenco  in,  communicated I — 155 

removal  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  and  designation  of  Lorenzo  Thomas  Secretary  ad 

interim,  February  21,  1868 1—156,  248 

Senate's  denial  of  power  to  remove  aud  appoint  communicated I — 157,  158 

appointment  of  Edmund  Cooper  Assistant  Secretary  of  Treasury I — 163,  164 

order  that  Adjutant  General  Thomas  resume  his  duties I — 240 

instructions  to  General  Grant  not  to  obey  orders  from  War  Department,  unless,  &c I — 240 

letter  to  General  Grant  in  regard  to  his  having  vacated  the  office  of  Secretary  ad  interim, I — 241 

telegram  to  Governor  Parsons I — 272 

message  commuuicatiug  report  relating  to  amendment  of  the  Constitution I — ^278 

reports  of  speech  August  18,  1866,  in  reply  to  Hon.  lleverdy  Johnson I — 298,301 

at  Cleveland,  Septembers,  1866 1—325,328,333 

at  St.  Louis,  September  8,  1866 1—340, 348 

notification  to  Secretary  of  Treasury,  August  14,  1867,  of  suspension  of  Mr.  Stanton I — 364 

conversation  with  Geueral  Emory I — ^233,  236 

with -General  Wallace 1—253,  256 

with  Mr.  Wood 1—372 

with  M  r.  Blodgett 1—375 

wi,h  Adjutaut  General  Thomas I— 417,  418,  426f  427,  428,  430, 437, 438,439,  4.52,  453 

with  Lieutenant  General  Sherman I — 461,  481,483 

with  Mr.  Cox I— 597,  605.  (509,  6 1 3 

with  Mr.  Jlerrick 1—617,623 

with  Sir.  Perrin 1—623,  624 

with  Secretary  Welles 1—664,674,675 

tender  of  War  Office  to  Lieutenant  General  Sherman 1—461,  483,  485,  517,  518,  521,  .528,  529 

nomination  of  Mr.  Ewing  Secretary  of  AVar,  February  22,  1868 1—508,  516,  .537,  5.55,  5*6 

instructions  to  test  Lorenzo  Thomas's  right  to  office I — 60.5,  6ii9, 620 

acquittal  on  article  XI 11—486,  487 

II 11—496 

III 11—497 

Johnson,  Reverdy,  a  senator  from  Maryland I — U 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court.  Ill — 361, 366,  369, 

390,  392,  401 
orders  by — 
that  trial  proceed  at  the  expiration  of  10  days,  unless  for  causes  shown  to  the  contrary :  offered. . .  I — 83 

considered I — 84 

that  .Senate  commence  the  trial  2d  f.'f  April :  offered I — 85 

that  two  of  managers  be  permitted  to  61e  printed  arguments,  &c.  :  amendment  offered  and  adopted,  II — 5 

remarks  by 1—18,  33, 78,  82,  83,  84, 85, 147,  154, 160, 161, 176, 206. 208, 309, 236,  237, 247, 265, 270, 298,  312, 

325,  36g, 365,  368,  370,  372, 397,  452, 486, 487,  495, 5U7,  515,  517,  5!8,  5!9,  520.  521,  522. 
523,  524, 528,  .529,  .532, 534,  537,  562, 563,  564,  566, 568,  573,  583,  5b'J,  590,  612.  620,  621, 
626,  644,  654,  661,  669,  675,  676,  680,  692,  709,  711,  714,  716,  717,  7l8,  721,  722,  736,  739, 
740,  74 1.  II— 5,  6,  13, 118, 166, 189, 218,  262, 281, 282,  283,  306,  389,  469,  475,  479,  483. 
484,  485, 487,  490,  498. 

questions  by 1-206,265,507,3*7,680 

opinion  on  the  case Ill- -50 

Jones,  J.  W.     See  Testimony. 

Judgment  of  acquittal  entered II — ^98 

K. 

Karsner,  George  W.     (See  Testimony.) 
Kuapp,  George.     (See  Testimony.) 

Lawrence,  William,  a  representative  from  Ohio- 
brief  of  authorities  u;jou  the  law  of  impeachable  crimes,  by I — 1 23.    Ill — 355 


XrV  INDEX. 

Lep;i-')ative  businoss.     (Spp  Practice.) 

Logan,  John  A.,  of  lUinoiK,  a  nmnager I 4^  17 

argument  by — 

on  application  of  counsel  for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial 1 69 

linnl.  on  the  case 11 14 

reinai  kti  on  the  Alta  Vela  letter 1I_  268 

M. 

ManiipcrK  on  the  part  of  the  House  elected,  and  Senate  notified 1—4 

directed  to  carry  articles  to  Senate J 4 

House  informed  that  Senate  is  ready  to  receive 1 4 

iIoU(:i'  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  attend 1_4 

appear  at  bar  of  Senate  with  articles I 6 

demaad  that  the  Senate  take  process.  &c T 16 

McCreery,  Thomas  C,  a  senator  from  Kentucky I 1 1 

motion  by n 4;,^ 

McDonald,  William  J.     (See  Testimony.) 

McEweu,  Daniel  C.     (See  Testimony.) 
Sleigs,  R.  J.     (See  Testimony.) 
Merrick,  IJichard  T.     (See  Testimony.) 
?.Ioore,  William  G.     (See  Trstim/jvy.) 
Moorhead,  James  K.     (See  Tcstiiiuiny.) 

Morgan,  Edwin  U.,  a  senator  from  New  York I u 

Morrill',  Justin  S.,  a  senator  from  Vermont 1 n 

order  b,y — 
that  Senate  meet  on  Monday  next  (May  11)  at  11  a.  m  ,  for  deliberation,  and  on  Tuesday  at  12  ra. 
proceed  to  vote  without  debate  on  the  several  articles — each  senator  to  be  permitted  to  tile  his 

written  opinion  within  two  days  after  the  vote :  offered 11— 47f> 

agreed  to 1 1 473 

remarks  by 1—390.     U— 249, 476,  478 

opinion  on  the  case .^ HI jutj 

Morrill,  Lot  M.,  a  senator  from  Maiue I 1  [ 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  io  iii  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill— :it;4,  394 

order  by — 

that  Senate  proceed  on  Monday  next  to  take  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  articles  without  debate  ;  any 

senator  to  have  permission  to  file  a  written  opinion  :  oflfered .11 476 

remarks  by 1—185,443.     11—470,476,493,494,49.5 

opinion  on  the  case j H i-jg 

Morton,  Oliver  P.,  a  senator  from  Indiana •. .   I— il 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill— 367  387 

remarks  by 1—24,86,674.    11—219,465 

N. 

Nei.son,  Thomas  A.  R.,  of  Tennessee,  counsel 1  —  19 

argument  by — 

on  motion  to  fix  a  day  for  trial  to  proceed 1 2S 

on  motion  to  tix  the  number  and  order  of  speakers  on  final  argument 1—534.     1 1—9 

tinal,  on  the  case II )18  141 

remarks  on  the  Alta  Vela  lettef 11—144, 265, 266,  267, 268,  280,  28lV282,  283,  l.'84i  307 

Norton.  Daniel  S.,  a  senator  from  Minnesota I U 

Nye,  Jiunes  W.,  a  senator  from  Nevada I 11 

O. 

Oath  administered  to  Chief  Justice I— 11 

to  senators \ \\  10  ^7  34 

<luestion.  Whether  it  is  competent  for  the  President  pro  tempore  of  the  Senate  to  take  the,  and  become' 

thereby  a  part  of  the  court— f%  Mr.  //fiwdricisj— discussed Ill— 3t» 

withdrawn Ijl 400 

Officers,  territorial  and  executive,  list  of,  with  their  tenures .'...'. . .I--548 

0;^<inion :  order,  that  each  senator  shall  be  permitted  to  tile,  within  two  days  after  the  vote  shall  have 

been  taken,  to  be  printed  with  the  proceedings  \By  Mr.  Morrill  of  Vermont] 11—476 

agreed  to 11—478 

filed  by- 
Mr.  Buckalew HI o  \  ^ 

Mr.  Cattell HI 17,^ 

Mr.  Davis 1 1 1 15,; 

Mr.  Doolittle .'."..."!!.''.'.!!!!.'!...."....'....'.!!.]..  1 1 1— V-Ml 

Mr.  Kdmuads HI wj 

Mr.  Ferry HI I'JI 

Mr.  Fessendeu HI \{\ 

Mr.  Fowler HI 193 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen H I 21 '8 

Mr.  (jrimes !.!!!!!! !!!!!!!!"!!!! !!^" !1! !!.!!!"!!!!  11 1—:);;8 

Mr.  Hnrlan H I 2.13 

Mr.  Henilirson HI 29.") 

Mr.  Hendricks ^^...11 1 95 

Mr.  Howard .'....Ill 31 

Mr.  Howe HI ,-w( 

Mr.  Johnson .'..'.'..*'.'.'.'.'...'.' Ill— .">() 

Mr.  Morrill,  of  Maine '.''.'.'.'.'.'.'...'.'.'..  .■^. Ill 12ii 

Mr.  Morrill,  of  Vermont .'.'.'.'..".'.".'.'...".'.'.'..'.'.!' !.!!!!!.'.!  1 1 1— 136 

Mr.  l'atter^on,  of  New  Hampshire Ill— 3U9 

Mr.  I'oraeroy Ill— .'MO 

I\Ir.  Slieriijiin , HI .3 

Mr.  Stewart '...'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'....'...'.. .....Ml 1 52 


INDEX.  XV 

Opinion,  filed  bv — 

Mr.  Sumner Ill— ^47 

Mr    r  ipton «• 1 1  (—  1 8!^ 

Mr.  Trumbull : .  .111—319 

Mr.  Van  Winkle .% Ill— 147 

Mr.  Vickers .'..111—116 

Mr.  Williams : Ill— ,'147 

Mr.  Wilson HI— JH 

Mr.  Yates 111—102 

P. 

Patterson,  James  W.,  a  senator  from  New  Hampshire I — 17 

opinion  on  the  case HI — 309 

Patterson,  David  T.,  a  senator  from  Tennessee I — 11 

remarks  by ..— I — 160 

Perrin,  Edwin  O.     (See  Testimony.) 

Pomeroy,  Samuel  C,  a  senator  from  Kansas I — 11 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  a^member  of  the  court HI — 379,  390, 

35>4,  401 
order  by — 

(in  Senate,)  that  the  notice  to  Chief  Justice  to  meet  the  Senate  In  the  trial  and  request  his  attend- 
ance be  delivered  by  a  committee  of  three,  &c. ;  agreed  to I — 10 

remarks  by 1—10,451.    nTT4,359,  490 

opinion  on  the  case , .111—340 

Practice.     (See  Rules.) 

right  of  counsel  making  motion  to  open  and  close  argument  thereon :■.. I — 77 

the  limitation  of  argument  on  interlocutory  questions  to  one'  hour,  by  rule  XX,  has  reference  to  the 

whole  number  of  persons  to  speak  on  each  side,  aud  not  to  each  person  severally '..J. — 207,208 

it  is  not  in  order  to  call  up  business  transacted  iu  legislative  session , I— ^01 

objections  to  putting  question  to  witness  by  a  member  of  the   court  must  come  from  the   court 

itself ~.. I— 507,519 

but  after  question  is  asked,  it  is  csmpetent  for  managers  to  state  objections  to  ita  being  answbred I — 519 

it  is  competent  for  Senate  to  recall  any  witness j..l — 516,  52i 

if  managers  desire  to  cross-examine  tUey  must  croi-s-examine  before  dismissing  witness 1 — 531 

an  application  for  an  order  of  Senate  to  furnish  a  statement  from  its  records  can  only  be  addressed  to 

Senate  iu  legislative  session ^ 1 — 589 

the  general  rules  of  the  Senate  in  its  legislative  session  govern  proceedings  of  the  court,  so  far  as  ap- 
plicable   ,-...J,-..^51,532 

President.     (See  Johnson,  Andrew.) 
President  pro  tempore  of  the  Senate — 
question,  Whether  it  is  competent  for  the,  to  take  the  oath  and  become  thereby  a  part  of  the  courts— 

[By  Mr.  Hendricks] ■ I1I.-360 

discussed  by — 

Mr.  Anthony ., HI— 3?5 

Mr.  Bayard , HI— 372 

Mr.  Buckalew HI— 333,  ."iS.^ 

Mr.  Conness 111—367,395 

Mr.  Davis 111—363,366 

Mr.  Dixon 111—388,389,390,391,392,393,394,395,396 

Mr.  Drake 111—380,389,390,393 

Mr.  Ferry 111-^94 

Mr.  Fessendeo HI— 366,  367,  394;  401 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen .- 111—380,385 

Mr.  Grimes 111-388,394,401 

Mr.  Hendricks 111-360,364,392,399,401 

Mr.  Howard 111-361,367,382,383,388,389,390,392,393,401 

Mr.  Howe 111—380 

Mr.  Johnson Ill— 361,  366, 369,  390,  .392,  401 

Mr.  Morrill,  of  Maine 111-364,394 

Mr.  Morton 111—367,387 

Mr.  Pomeroy 111—379,390,394,401 

Mr.  Sherman HI— 360,  371,  391,  392,  401 

Mr.  Stewart HI— 395 

Mr.  Sumner HI — 375 

Mr.  Thayer HI— 381 

Mr.  WilUama IH— 365,  366 

withdrawn ; HI— 400 

Question,  final,  order  that  when  doors  shall  be  closed  for  deliberation  upon,  the  official  reporters  shall 
take  down  debates,  to  be  reported  in  proceedings — [By  Mr.  Edmunds.] 

offered ' 11—14; 

read 11—188,218,471 

tabled,  (yeas  28,  nays  20) '. .' 11—474 

order,  that  Senate  proceed  to  vote  on  the  several  articles  at  twelve  o'clock  on  day  after  the  close  of 
arguments — [By  Mr.  Sumner.] 

offered 11—189 

called  up 11—474, 476 

order,  that  the  Senate  meet  on  Monday  next  (May  11)  at  II  a.  m.,  for  deliberation  on,  and  on  Tues- 
day, at  12  m.,  proceed  to  vote  without  debate  on  the  several  articles,  &c. — [By  Mr.  Morrill,  of 
Vermont.  ] 

offered 11—476 

agreed  to ) II — 478 

orders  offered  prescribing  form  of,  by — 

Mr.  Buckalew H— 478 

JUr.  Conkling 11—473 


XTI  INDEX. 

Qaovtion,  final — Continued. 

orjfis  offered  prei»cribing  form  of,  bv — 

Mr.  Conms8 ." 11—473 

Jlr.  Hendricks U— 478 

Mr.  Sumner 11—189,219,478 

views  of  Chief  Justice  on  form  of  putting • 11—480 

order  that  the  views  of  Chief  Justice  be  entered  on  the  journol — [By  Mr.  Buckalcw.] 

oflVred  and  agreed  to 11—480 

order  that,  be  put  as  proposed  by  presidiug  ofiBcer,  and  each  senator  rise  and  answer  "Guilty"  or 
"Not  guilty"  only — \ By  Mr.  Sumner.] 

offered  and  agreed  to II — 481 

order,  that  the  standing  order  of  the  Senate  that  it  will  proceed  to  vote  on  the  articles  at  12  o'clock 
111.  to-morrow  be  rescinded.     [By  Mr.  Edmunds.]  — 

offered  May  11,1868 11—482 

agreed  to II — 483 

order,  that  the  Senate  now  proceed  to  vote  upon  the  articles,  according  to  the  ruleB  «f  the  Senate — 
[By  Mr.  Edmunds.] 

offered  May  IG 11—485 

a-reed  to : 11—486 

order  that,  shall  be  taken  on  eleventh  article  first,  and  thereafter  on  the  other  ten  Bucces^^vely  as  they 
stand — [By  Mr.  H'Miams.] 

agreed  to,  (yeas  ^4,  nays  19) IIh-484,  485 

titken  on — 

Article  XI:  That  he  attempted  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  tenurc-of-office  act  by  unlawfully 

devising  means  to  prevent  Mr.  Stanton  fromresumiug  the  functions  of  his  office,  and  to  prevent 

the  execution  of  the  clause  in  the  appropriation  act  of  1607  requiring  that  all  orders  should  pass 

through  the  General  of  the  army,  and  the  reconstruction  acts  of  March  5,  J8G7;   (yeas  35,  navs 

19) 11-^86,  487 

order  that,  be  now  taken  on  remaining  articles — [By  Mr.  Conklhig.] 

offered  and  rejected,   (yeas  2fi,  nays  28)  II — 492 

that  the  several  orders  heretofore  adopted  as  to  order  of  voting  on,  be  rescinded — [  Uy  Mr.  IVilUams.] 

otfered... 11—490,491 

agreed  to 11^-495 

taken  on — 

Article  II :    That  he  issued  a  letter  of  authority  to  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim,  with  intent  to  violate  the  Constitution  and  tlw  tenure-of-ofiice  act ;  (yeas  35,  nays  19) . .  .II — 496 
ttjkeu  on — 
Article  III :    That  he  appointed  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  be  Secretary  of  War  ad  i7iterim,  with  intent  to 

violate  the  Coustitution,  (yeas  35,  nays  19.) II — 497 

Questions.     (See  Praciico.) 

R. 

Ram.sey ,  Ale-xander,  a  senator  from  Minnesota I — 1 1 

remarks  by I — ;.'76 

Kantlall,  Alexander  W.     (See  Testimony.) 

Replication,  rea<l  and  tiled I — 84 

Ross,  Edmund  G.,  a  senator  from  Kansas I — 11 

motion  by II: — 495 

Rule  VII,  order  amending,  in  respect  to  submitting  questions  of  evidence,  &c.,  to  Senate — [By  Mr. 
Henderson.] 

offered,  1 — 185;  agreed  to,  (yeas  31,  nays  19) I — 186 

VII,  order  amending  and  requiring  votes  upon  incidental  questions  to  be  without  division,  unless 
demanded,  &c. — [By  Mr.  Drake.] 
offered,  1—230;  agreed  to 1—277 

XX,  construction  of I  -207, 208 

XXI,  motion  to  amend,  so  as  to  allow  such  of  managers  or  counsel  as  desire  to  be  heard,  to  speak  on 

final  argument — [By  Manager  Bingham] I — 450 

XXI,  motion  to  remove  limit  fixed  by,  as  to  number  who  may  participate  in  final  argument — [By  Mr. 
Frelingh  uyseii.] 

offered 1—451 

discussed  by — 

Manager  Williams I — 491 

.Manager  .Stevens I — 494 

Manager  liou twell I — 495 

Mr.  Stanbery 1—495 

Manager  Hutler 1 — 496 

Mr.  Evarts '. 1—497 

tabled,   (yeas  38,  nays  10) 1—498 

XXIII,  order  ami  iidiug,  to  subject  it  to  operation  of  Rule  VII — [By  Mr.  Conkling.] 

offered,  and  agreed  to I — 18 

amendment,  that  tlie  fifteen  minutes  allowed  by,  shall  be  for  the  whole  deliberation  on  final  question, 
and  not  to  Hnal  question  on  each  article— fiJi^  Mr.  Drake.] 

offered,  11—474;  adopted 11^78 

Rules.     (See  I'rac{ice.) 

order  (in  House)  limiting  debate  and  directing  proceedings  when  articles  are  reported  to  House— [fly 

Mr.  ll'aijiburne,  of  Illinois :]  adopted;  (yeas  106,  nays  37) I — 3 

of  procedure  and  practice I — 6,  13 

of  .Senate  sitting  in  legislative  session,  adopted  for  guidanco  of  court,  as  far  as  applicable I — 451,  532 

Ruling.s.     (See  Evidence;  Practice.) 

S. 

Saulsbury,  Willard,  a  senator  from  Delaware I — 12 

Senulors.  oath  iitl ministered  to I — 11,  12,  17,  34 

8<"ward,  Ftedrriik  W.     (See  Tratimnny.) 
Sheridan,  James  U.     (.See  Testimony.) 

&.heroian,  John,  a  senator  from  Ohio i-.I — II 

remarks  ou  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  git  88  a  member  of  the  court HI — :iGO,  371, 

391,392,401 


INDEX.  XVII 

Sherman.  John — Continued, 
orders  by — 

that  trial  proceed  oh  6th  of  April :  offered  and  discueaed I — '25 

that  under  the  rules  all  questions  other  than  of  order  should  bo  submitted  to  Senate:  offered I^lBfi 

that  additional  time  allowed  by  amendment  to  llule  XXI  shall  not  exceed  three  hours  :  offered 1^^195 

that  managers  and  counsel  have  leave  to  tile  written  or  printed  arguments  before  oral  argument 

commences  :  offered I — 741 

that  managers  be  permitted  to  tile  printed  or  written  arguments:  amendment  offered II — U 

remarks  by 1—25,  8-3,  83, 154, 155,  181, 185,  2C4, 3G3,  449,  451, 494, 4<Jt5,  537,  5G5,  0(i8,  589,  G08,  611,  673,  676, 

709,  715,  716,  741.     11—5, 6,  83,  84, 188, 280, 281, 359,  403,  4C9,  471, 473,  475,  47S»,  480,  487 

questions  by 1—181,  264,  .%8 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 3 

Sherman,  William  T.     (See  Testimony) 
Smith,  Francis  H.     (See  Testimony.) 

Sprague,  William,  a  senator  from  Rhode  Island I — 11 

remarks  by 1-477.     11-^493 

Stanbery.  Henry,  of  Kentucky,  counsel I*-19 

motions  by — 

for  an  allowance  of  forty  days  to  prepare  answer I — 19 

denied ,.. 1 — 24 

for  an  allowance  of  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial  ., I — 69 

denied,  (yeas  12,  nays  41) I — 82 

argument  by — 

on  application  for  forty  days  to  prepare  answer '. I — 21 

for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial 1 — 75 

on  admissibilitv — 
of  Adjt.  Genl.  Thomas's,  declarations  to  Mr.  Burleigh,  February  21,  1868. .  .1—188, 192, 193, 195,  206^  207 

of  President's  letter  to  General  Grant,  unaccompanied  with  enclosures I — 244,  245 

of  appointment  of  Edmurd  Cooper  to  be  Assistant  Secretary  of  Treasury I — 260,  261,262, 2l>4 

of  telegrams  relating  to  the  recoustructiou  of  Alabama I — 270,  275 

of  President's  declarations  to  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  February  21 1--421 

of  conversations  between  President  and  Gen'l  Sherman,  January  12  . .  -I— 462,  463,  465,  468,  469,  471,  472 

of  question  respecting  department  of  the  Atlantic I — 481 ,  482 

of  tender  of  War  office  to  General  Sherman J — 4H2 

of  President's  purpose  to  get  the  question  before  the  courts I — 485 

of  question.  Whether  General  Sherman  formed  and  gave  the  President  an  opinion,  &c. .-i — 499,  501,  504 

of  afiSdavit  and  warrant  of  arrest  of  Lorenzo  Thomas I — 512,  513,  514 

on  motion  to  remove  limit  to  number  ef  speakers  on  final  argument I — 495 

on  right  of  counsel  to  renew  examination  of  a  witness  recalled  by  court I — 524 

final,  on  the  ease II — 359,  360 

Stanton,  Edwin  M.,  Secretary  of  War —  , 

nomination  of I — 148 

confirmation  of I — 148 

commission  of I —  1 57 

suspension  of,  communicated  to  Senate I — 148 

Senate's  non-concurrence  in I — 155 

removal  of,  order  for , I — 156, 248 

communicated  to  Senate I — 156 

Senate  resolution  on I — 157 

interviews  of,  with  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  demanding  possession I — 164, 174, 220, 223, 232 

letter  of,  denying  General  Thomas's  authority 1—420 

affidavit  of,  for  arrest  of  General  Thomas I — 515 

Stark,  Everett  D.     (See  Testimony.) 

Stewart,  William  M.,  a  senator  from  Nevada I — 11 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  ^ro  tcmjiore  to  git  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 395 

orders  by — 
that  JIanager  Logan  have  leave  to  file  written  argument : 

offered 1—741 

amended I — ^74 1 

read II— 3 

remarks  by I— 489, 491, 532, 561, 632, 680, 717, 740, 74L     11—11 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 152 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  of  Pennsylvania,  a  manager I — 4,  17 

remarks  on  order  relating  to  final  argument I — 494.    II — 7 

argument,  final,  on  the  case II — 219 

Summons  ordered I — 16 

return  of,  read  and  verified I — 18 

Sumner,  Charles,  a  senator  from  Massachusetts I — 11 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  President  pro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 375 

orders  by — 

that  Senate  proceed  with  trial  from  day  to  day  unless  otherwise  ordered : 

offered 1—85 

withdrawn I — 86 

that  Chief  Justice  presiding  has  no  authority  to  vote  on  any  question  during  the  trial,  &c. : 

offered  and  rejected,  (yeas  22,  nays  26,) I — 185 

that  where  the  Senate  were  equally  divided,  and  Chief  Justice  gave  a  casting  vote,  such  vote  was 
without  authority  under  the  Constitution  : 

offered  and  rejected,  (yeas  21,  nays  27,) I — 187 

that  trial  proceed  without  delay  on  account  of  removal  of  limit  provided  by  Rule  XXI: 

amendment  offered  and  accepted I — 401 

that  on  final  argument  the  several  managers  who  speak  shall  close  : 

offered 1—497 

that  under  rule  limiting  argument  to  two  on  a  side,  such  others  as  choose  may  file  arguments  at  any 
time  before  the  argument  of  the  closing  manager : 

laid  over 1—532 

amended I — 534 

indefinitely  postponed,  (yeas  34,  nays  15,) I — ^36 

2  IP 


XVIII  INDEX. 

Sumner,  Charles,  orderK  by — Continued. 

that  all  evidence  offered  not  trivial  or  obviously  irrelevant  bo  receivea  withont  objection,  to  be 
open  fo  question  at  the  bar  to  determine  itsj  value,  and  to  bo  sifted  and  weighed  in  the  final 
judgrment : 

offered 1—589 

tabled,  (yeag  a-),  nays  II) 1—590 

that  Senate  sit  from  li)  a.  m.  to  6  p.  m. : 

offered 1—631 

rejected,  (yeas  1:1.  nays  HO) ^ 1—633 

that  Sen  ^te  iirocecd  to  vote  on  the  several  articles  of  impeachment  at  tvrelve  o'clock  on  the  day 
iifter  close  of  arg^uments  : 

offerrd 11—189 

called  up 11—474,476 

that  after  reninviil,  which  follows  conviction,  any  further  judgment  shall  be  determined  by  a  majority 
of  ineinbcrM  present : 

offered  and  laid  over II — 249 

that  Mr.  Nelson,  one  of  counsel,  having  used  disorderly  words,  has  deserved  the  disapprobation  of 
the  Senate  :• 

offered 11—280 

tabled,  (yeas  35,  nays  10) 11—307 

that  Senate  will  sit  from  10  a.  m.  to  6  p.  m.  : 

offered  and  tabled,  (yens  32,  nays  17) 11—308 

denying:  permission  to  each  senator  to  file  written  opinion,  &c  : 

offered  and  rejected,  (yeas  6,  nays  42) II — 477 

that  the  question  be  put  as  proposed  by  presiding  officer,  and  each  senator  shall  rise  in  his  place 
and  answer  "Guilty"  or  "Not  guilty"  only  : 

offered  and  agreed  to II — 481 

rules  by — 
XXlil,  in  taking  the  votes  of  .Senate  on  the  articles,  presiding  officer  shall  call   eack  senator  by 
name,  and  upon  each  article  propose  the  question  of  "  Guilty  or  not  guiltj'  ?  "  whereupon  each 
senator  shall  ri.se  in  his  place  and  answer : 

proposed  A  pril  25 II — 189 

laid  over 11—219 

called  up 11—478 

XXIV,  on  a  conviction  by  Senate  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  presiding  officer  forthwith  to  pronounce  the 
removal  from  office  of  the  convicted  person  ;  any  further  judgment  shall  be  on  the  order  of 
Senate : 

proposed  April  25 II — 189 

laid  over 11—219 

called  up 11—481 

remarks  by 1—24,  25,  85,  86, 154, 155, 18.5,  ISfi,  187, 265, 298, 3G7,  .370,  371,  489,  491, 496,  497,  532, 534,  .536,  561, 

589,  631,  632, 633, 673.     11—99. 141, 188, 189, 203, 218,  219, 249, 280, 281, 
307,  308,  471,  475,  477,  478,  479,  481,  490, 498 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 247 

on  the  question,  Can  the  Chief  Justice,  presiding  in  the  Senate,  rule  or  vote Ill — 281 

T. 

Testimony  for  the  prosecution — 

William  J.  JlcUonald:  service  of  Senate  resolutions  at  office  of  President I — 158 

J.W.Jones:  service  of  Senate  resolution  on  Adjutant  General  Thomas I — 159 

C.  K.  Creecy :  form  of  commission  before  and  alter  fenure-of-office  act,  I — 160, 161, 162;  commis.sicn  of 
Edmund  Cooper,  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  Treasury,  I — 163;  date  of  change  in  form  of  commis- 
sion, 1 — 164;  President's  notification  to  Secretary  of  Treasury  of  Secretary  Stanton's  suspen- 
sion. 1 — 363,  3tl4  ;  notification  of  Secretary  of  Treasury  to  heads  of  bureaus,  I — 366. 

Burt  Van  Horn  :  Adjutant  General  Thomas's  demand  for  possession  of  War  Department I — 164-170 

James  K.  Moorhead:  Adjutant  General  Thomas's  demand  for  possession  of  War  Department 1 — 170-174 

Walter  A.  Burleigh:  Adjutant  General  Thomas's  account  of  interview  with  Secretary  Stanton,  I — 
!74;  his  intentions,  1 — 188;  his  declarations  to  clerks,  I — 211,214,215,219,220;  means  by  which  ho 
intended  to  obtaia  posses.<ion,  1—17.5,  188,210,211,218,219. 

Samuel  Wilkeson:  Adjutant  General  'I'homas's  account  of  interview  with  Secretary  Stanton I — 220 

George  W.  Karsner:  conversations  with  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  I — 223-230;  his  intentions,  I — 224, 
227;  interview  with  Secretary  Stanton,  1 — 231. 

Thomas  W.  Ferry:  occurrences  at  War  Department,  February  22 1—232 

William  II.  Kinorv  :  conversations  with  President  iu  reference  to  troops,  I — 233-236;  Orders  No.  15 

and  17,   I— 2.r>,  2:i8. 
George  W.  Wallace :  conversation  with  President  in  regard  to  garrison  at  Washington  and  movement 

of  troops 1 — 253-256 

William  E.  Chandler  :  process  of  drawiug  money  from  Treasury  Department,  I — 256, 265, 266 ;  cour.se 
of  issuing  commission  to  an  officer  confirmed  by  Senate,  1 — 257;  authority  of  Assistant  Secretary 
of  Treasury  to  sign  warrants,  I — 266;  the  praciico,  1 — 267. 
Charles  A.  Tinker:  telegrams  between  Lewis  E.  I'arsons  and  President  relating  to  reconstruction  in 

Alabama,  1—268-272;  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866,  as  telegraphed,  1—280,281,289,290. 
James  B.  Sheridan:  President's  speech,  August  18,  11^66,  iu  reply  to  Hon.  Uoverdy  Johnson.  I — 281- 

283;  maimer  of  reporting  it,  I — 282,  283,  2'.tl  :  corrections  by  President's  secretary,  I — 281,290,291. 
James  O.  Clepbane:  President's  speech,  August   18,1860,  in  reply  to  Hon.  Uoverdy  Johnson,  1 — 283, 
284;  revision  by  President's  secretary,  I — 284,294;  verbatim  n^port  rewritten  for  Chronicle,  1 — 284, 
'285,  286. 
Francis  II.  Smit'.i :  President's  speech,  August  18,  1806,  I — 292,293;  revision  by  President's  secretary, 
1—292. 

William  G.  Moore:  corrections  of  report  of  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866 1 — 294,297 

William  N.  Hudson:  President's  speech  at  Cleveland,  September  3,  1866,  reported  for  Cleveland 
Leader,  I— 3I1-1-310;  cries  of  the  crowd,  I— ;!10-3I.5. 

Daniel  C.  :»Iclivven:  I'resident's  speech  at  Cleveland,  Septembers,  1866 1—316-318 

Everett  D.  Stark:  President's  speech   at  Cleveland,    September  3,   1866,   reported  for  Cleveland 

Herald 1—318-321 

L.  L.  Walbridge:  President's  speech  at  St.  Louis,  Septembers,  1866 1— .337-340 

Joseph  A.  Dear:  President's  speech  at  St.  Louis. ../. 1 — 345-348 


INDEX.  XIX 

Testimony  for  the  prosecutiou — Continued. 

Robert  S.  Chew  :  change  in  form  of  commissions  after  passage  of  civil-tenure  act,  I — 351, 357  ;  change 
in  plate  for  printing  forms,  1—352;  list  of  appointments  of  heads  of  f'epartmonts,  1—353,  3G0,  3G1 ; 
ajipointmcnts  of  acting  Secretaries  of  State,  I — 359;  I'rom  whom,  I — ;iCiJ,  361. 

II.  WooJ:  interview  with  President,  Septeinher,  IStifi,  I — 372;  President  and  Congress,  I — 373;  pat- 
ronage, 1 — 373  ;  statement  to  Mr.  Koppel,  I — 373,  374,  375. 

Foster  Blodgett:  suspension  from  office  of  postmaster  at  Augusta,  Georgia I — 375 

Testimony  for  the  defence — 

Lorenzo  Thomas:  service,  I — 415,432;  restoration  to  duty  as  Adjutant  General,  I — 416,417,433; 
appointment  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  1—418,  433,  434,  435,  436  ;  letter  of  Mr.  Stanton,  I — 420 ; 
ai-rest  1—427,441;  interviews  with  Secretary  Stanton,  1—417,418,410,428,429,437,460;  with  Pres- 
ident, I — 117,418,  426,  427,  423,  430,  437,  438,  439,  452,  453;  with  Mr.  Burleigh,  1—431,  439,  440,  442,  452; 
with  Mr.  Karsner,  1—431,432,448,449,453;  with  Mr.  Wilkeson,  1—439;  with  B.  B.  Johnson,  I— 
454,455;  use  of  force,  I— 420,  429,  430,  431,  440,  441,  442,  443,  444  ;  testimony  before  House  commit- 
tee, 1—433,  442,  449,  457,  458,  459  ;  wuuld  obey  President's  orders,  1—434,  435,  437,  443 ;  address  to 
clerks,  I — 450;  corrections  of  testimony,  1—452. 

"William  T.  Sherman  :  duties  in  Washington,  December,  18G7, 1—460,  461 ;  interviews  with  President, 
1—461,  481,  483  ;  tender  of  appointment  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  1—461,  483,  485,  517  ;  Pres- 
ident's declarations  of  purpose  in  making  tender,  1-485,  5i7,  518,  .521,  528,  529 ;  use  of  force,  1—529, 
530. 

R.  J.  Meigs :  v.arrant  of  arrest  of  Lorenzo  Thomas,  I — 508,  516 ;  docket  of  entries.  I — 517,  531. 

D.  W.  C.  Clarke :  nomination  of  Thomas  Ewiug,  sen.,  to  be  Secretary  of  War,  February  22,  1868, 
1 — 537;  when  received,  I — 537,555. 

William  G.  Moore :  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewing  to  be  Secretary  of  War,  1—556  ;  when  received,  1—556  ; 
and  delivered,  I — 557. 

Walter  S.  Cox  :  counsel  for  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  1—595,  596;  employed  by  Prei'ident,  1—597, 
613 ;  President's  instructions,  1—605,  609 ;  proceedings  and  their  purpose,  1—606-609,  612-617  ;  appli- 
cation for  habeas  corjms,  I — 606-609;  preparation  of  quo  warranto,  I — 612;  maldng  a  test  case,  1 — 
605,611,612;  J.  H.  Bradley,  1—614;  discharge  of  Thomas,  1—609,617. 

Richard  T.  Merrick  :  employment  in  case  of  General  Thomas,  1 — 617-623 ;  report  to  President,  1 — 618  ; 
President's  instructions,  February  22,  in  respect  to  obtaining  habeas  corpus,  1 — 620;  acts  in  refer- 
ence thereto,  1 — 620,  621 ;  discharge  of  Thomas,  I — 622. 

Edwin  O.  Perrin  :  interview  with  President,  February  21 1 — 623,  624 

Wm.  W.  Armstrong  :  President's  speech  at  Cleveland 1 — 634-637 

Barton  Able:  President's  speech  at  St.  Louis 1 — 637-640 

George  Knapp  :  President's  speech  at  ,St.  Louis 1 — 640-043 

Henry  F.  Zider :  President's  speech  at  St.  Louis,  I — 643;  corrections,  I — 643,644;  differences  in  re- 
ports, 1—646-653. 

Frederick  W.  Seward:  practice  in  appointments  of  vice-consuls I — 660,661 

Gideon  Welles :  date  of  commission,  I — 663,  701 ;  movements  of  troops,  Febniary  21,  1868,  I — 663, 
702,  703  ;  conversation  with  President,  1—664,  674,  675 ;  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  1—666,  667,  674  ; 
appointuieut  of  Mr.  Ewiug,  February  22, 1 — 664,  702;  consideration  of  civil-tenure  act  in  cabinet, 
1—675,  693,  697,  700. 

Edgar  T.  Welles:  form  of  navy  agent's  commission,  I — 704  ;  movem-^nt  of  troops,  1 — 705,  706. 

Alexander  W.  Randall:  date  of  commission,  1 — 707;  suspension  of  Foster  Blodgett,  1 — '707-715;  law 
by  which  he  was  suspended,  I— 711 ;  indictment,  1—712, 713,  714,  719  ;  explauation,  1—726, 727. 
Thayer,  John  M.,  a  senator  from  Nebraska I — 11 

remarks  on  the  competeucy  of  the  President ;>ro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court HI — 381 

remarks  by 1—184,208,489,490,536,606.    n— 8,  472,  493 

Thomas,  Lorenzo — 

rank  and  service  of 1 — 415,  432 

restoration  of,  to  duty  as  Adjutant  General 1—240,256,416.417,433 

appointment  of.  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim I — 156,248,418,433,434,  435,  436 

Seimte  resolution  on,  communicated  to I — 157,  158 

letter  of,  accepting I— .369 

demand  of,  for  possession 1—164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,  170, 171 ,  172, 173, 174, 220,  221, 222, 223,  232 

conversations  of — 

with  President I— 417, 418,  426,  427,  428,  430, 437, 438,  439,  452,  4-53 

with  Secretary  Stanton 1—417,418,419,428,429,437,460 

with  Mr.  Burleigh 1—174,  220,  431,  439,  440,  442, 452 

with  Mr.  Wilkesf)n 1—223,439 

with  Mr.  Karsner 1—223,  431,  432,  448,  449,  453 

with  Mr.  B.  B.  Jc  hnson I — 454, 455 

declarations  of,  to  clerks  of  the  War  Office 1—211, 214,  21.5, 219, 229, 450 

intentions  of,  as  to  obtaining  possession 1—175, 188,  210, 211, 218, 219, 431,  440,  41 1,  442,  443, 444 

arrest  of,  and  proceedings  thereon 1 — 427,441,  515 

Tickets,  order,  (in  Senate,)  that  during  the  trial,  no  persons  besides  those  who  ha,ve  the  privilege  of  the 

floor.  Sec,  shall  be  admitted  except  upou,  issued  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms. —  [By  Mr.  Anthony.] 

agreed  to I — 10 

Tinker,  Charles  A.     (See  Testimony.) 

Tipton,  Thomas  W.,  a  senator  from  Nebraska I — 11 

remarks  by 1—297.     11—187,282,483 

opinion  on  the  case HI — 1 89 

Trial,  motion  to  fix  a  day  for,  to  proceed — 
discussed  by — 

Manager  Butler I — 25 

Mr.  Nel.NOn 1—28 

Manager  Bingham ; I — 32,  .'W 

orderthat,  unless  otherwise  ordered,  the,  proceed  immediately  after  replication  filed — [By  Mr.  Conkling.] 

offered 1—31 

agreed  to,  (yeas  40,  nays  10) , 1—33 

application  ot  counsel  for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for 1 — 69 

discus.sed  by —  • 

Mr.  Evarts 1—68,71 

Managtr  Bingham I — 69,  77,  78 

Manager  Logan 1 — 69 

Manager  Wilson I — 73 

ilr.  Stanbery  7. .■.;... I — 75 


XX  INDEX. 

Trial,  motion  to  fix  a  day  for,  to  proceed — Continued, 
discussed  by — 

Manager  Bout  well I — 78 

Manager  Butler 1—81 

denied,  (yeas  13,  nays  41) 1—^2 

orders  offered  to  tix  time  for,  to  proceed  by — 

Mr.  Edmnnds 1—24 

Manager  Bingham I — 25 

Mr.  Slierinan I — 25 

Mr.  Conkling 1—31,32.85 

Mr.  Johnson 1—63,  84,  85 

Mr.  Hendricks 

Mr.  .Sumner 1—85 

application  of  counsel  for  reasonable  time,  after  replication  filed,  to  prepare  for I — 83 

order  fixing  the  30th  of  March  for  commencement  of — [Di/  Mr.  Conkling.] 

offered  and  agreed  to,  (yeas  28,  nay.s  24) I — 85 

Trumbull,  I.,}'mau,  a  senator  from  Illinois I — 11 

orders  by — 

that  respondent  file  ansvrer  on  or  before  23d  March  :  agreed  to I — 35 

that  as  many  of  managers  as  desire  bo  permitted  to  file  arguments  or  address  .Senate  orally  ;    but 
the  conclusion  of  oral  argument  shall  be  by  one  manager,  as  provided  by  rule  XXI : 

offered H- U 

adopted,  (yeas  28,  nays  22) 11—14 

remarks  by I— 81, 160, 187, 188,208,209,297,  4.51,489,528,  .'547,  ftU,  632,  673 

n— 7,  11, 12, 281, 308,  469, 470, 473, 475, 476, 486,  490, 492. 493, 495 
opinion  on  the  ease Ill — 319 

V. 

Van  Horn,  Burt.     (See  Testimony.) 

Van  Winkle,  P.  G.,  a  senator  from  West  Virginia I — II 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 147 

Vickers,  George,  a  senator  from  Maryland I — 17 

orders  by-^ 
that  any  two  of  managers,  except  those  who  open  and  close,  and  who  have  not  addressed  Senate, 
may  file  written  arguments  before  adjournment  or  make  oral  addresses  after  the  opening  by  one 
of  managers  and  fir.st  reply  of  counsel,  and  that  other  two  of  counsel  who  h.ive  not  spoken  may 
reply,  but  alternating  with  said  two  managers,  leaving  closing  iirgument  for  President  and  mana- 
gers' final  reply  under  original  rule  :  offered,  II — 3  ;  disagreed  to,  (yous  20,  n.ays  26,)  II — 4. 
that  one  of  managers  may  file  printed  argument  before  adjournment,  and  that  after  oral  opening  by 
a  manager  and  reply  by  one  of  counsel  another  counsel  may  file  written  or  make  oral  address,  to 

be  followed  by  closing  speech  of  one  of  counsel  and  final  reply  of  a  manager:  offered II — 4 

remarks  by II — .3,  4 

opinion  on  the  case i lU — 116 

Votes.     {See  Chief  Justice ;  Evidence;  Question;  Rvles.) 

W. 

Wade,  Benjamin  F.,  a  senator  from  Ohio , I — 12 

(.See  President  pro  tmipore  ) 
Walbridge,  L.  L.     (.See  Testimony.) 
Wallace,  George  W.     (.See  Testimony.) 
\W-A\ei,  Edgar  T.     (.See  Testimony.) 
Welles,  Gideon.     (See  Testimony.) 
Wilkeson,  .Samuel.     (.See  Testimony.) 

WiUey,  Waitmau  T.,  a  senator  from  West  Virginia 1—12 

Williams,  Geoige  II.,  a  senator  from  Oregon  I — 12 

remarks  on  the  competency  of  the  Pretideut /iro  tempore  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court Ill — 3(55, 366 

orderg  by — 
that  consideration  of  respondent's  application  for  time  be  postponed  unUl  managers  have  sub- 
mitted their  evidence  :  offered I — 85 

not  agreed  to.  (yeas  9,  nay s  42) I — 86 

that  no  senator  shall  speak  more  than  once,  nor  to  exceed  fifteen  minutes  during  deliberations  on 

final  questions:  offered 11—218 

postponed II — 219 

tabled,  (yeas  28,  nays  20) 11—474 

that  the  question  shaft  be  taken  on  the  eleventh  article  first,  and  thereafter  on  the  other  ten  buc- 

cessively  as  they  stand  :  agreed  to,  (yeas  34,  nays  19) II — 4S4,  485 

that   the  several  onlers  heretofore   adopted   as   to  the  order  of  voting  upon  the   articles  be 

rescinded :  offered II — 490 

agreed  to 1 1 — 495 

remarks  by .  .1— 85,  80,  187, 267,  497, 522, 524,  528,  634,  692, 706.    H— 318, 472, 479, 484, 487,  490,  492,  495, 496, 4  J7 

I  (til  *tions  by 1—522, 692,  706 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 347 

Williams,  Thomas,  of  Penn.sylvania,  a  manager I — 4,  17 

argnirient,  final,  on  the  case II — 230,  24!) 

rcuKirks  on  motion  relating  to  the  number  of  speakers  on  final  argument I — 491.     II — 6 

Wilson,  James  E.,  of  Iowa,  a  manager I — 4, 17 

argument  by — 

on  application  of  counsel  for  forty  days  to  prepare  answer I — 20 

for  tliirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial 1 — T.i 

on  lidmissibilily —  * 

of  President's  letter  to  General  Grant,  unaccompanied  with  enclosures 1—244,246 

of  President's  conversation  with  General  .Sherman ; I — 478,  479 

of  employment  of  counsel  by  Pn-sident  to  get  up  test  cuso I — 602 

of  President's  declarations  to  Mr.  IVrriu '. I — 626 

0*' advice  to  President  by  cabinet  touching  coaatitutionality  of  teaure-of -office  act I — 681 


INDEX.  XXI 

Wilaon,  Henry,  a  senator  from  Massnchusetts ; 1—12 

renimks  by  1—25,31,32,86,181,184,740.    11—6,141,434,473 

opiuion  on  the  case .- -- lU — 21^4 

■Witness.     (See  Practice.) 

iiuestion,  Wheiher  counsel  can  renew  examination  of  a,  recalled  by  court — [By  Mr,  Wtlhams] I — 5t.>2 

discussed  by — 

Mr.  Kvarts 1-522,524,520 

manager  Butler 1—523 

Manager  Biugbam 1—524,525,527 

Mr.  Staubery 1-^524 

withdrawn - I — 523 

Witnesses  for  the  prosecution.     (For  analysis  of  testimony  see  Testimony.) 

Blodgett ,  Foster,  suspension  from  oftice I — 375 

Burleigh,  Walter  A.,  conversations  with  Thomas 1—174, 188 

Chandler,  William  E.,  drawing  money  from  treasury .1 — 256 

Chew,  Robert  S.,  form  of  commissions I — 351,  357 

Clephaue,  James  O.,  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866 1—283,294 

Creecy,  Charles  E.,  form  of  commission I — 160,363 

Dear,  Joseph  A.,  President's  .St.  Ijouis  speech i I — 345 

iihory,  William  H.,  conversatiims  with  President;  troops 1—233 

Ferry,  Thomas  W.,  demand  of  War  Offlco 1—232 

Hudson,  William  N.,  President's  Cleveland  speech I — 304 

Jones,  J.  W.,  service  of  Senate  resolution I — 159 

Karsuer,  George  W. ,  conversations  with  Thomas I — 223, 231 

McDonald,  William  J.,  service  of  Senate  resolutions I — li58 

McE wen,  Daniel  C. ,  President's  Cleveland  speech I — 316 

Moore,  William  G.,  corrections  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866 1 — 294 

Moorhead,  James  K.,  demand  of  War  Office I — 170 

Sheridan,  James  B.,  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866 1 — 281,290 

Smith,  Francis  H.,  President's  speech,  August  18,  1866 1-292 

Stark ,  Everett  D.,  Presidout's  Clevelaud  speech I — 318 

Tinker,  Charles  A.,  telegrams 1-268,280,289 

Van  Horn,  Burt,  demand  of  War  Office I — 164 

Walbridge,  L.  L.,  President's  St.  Louis  speech 1—337 

Wallace,  George  W.,  conversations  with  President;  troops I — 253 

Wilkesou,  Samuel,  conversations  with  Thomas I — 220 

Wood,  H.,  interview  with  President I — '372 

jVitnesses  for  the  defence — 

Able,  Barton,  President's  St.  Ijouis  speech 1—637 

Armstrong,  William  W.,  President's  Cleveland  speech I — 634 

Clarke,  D.  W.  C,  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewing ;I — 537,  555 

Cox,  Walter  S.,  test  case 1—595 

Knapp,  George,  President's  St.  Louis  speech I — 64G 

Meigs,  R.  J.,  arrest  of  Thomas .■ I— ,508,  534 

Merrick,  Richard  T.,  case  of  Thomas;  habeas  corpus 1 — 617 

Moore,  William  G.,  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewing I — 5.56 

Perrin ,  Edwin  O. ,  conversations  with  President I — 623 

Randall,  Alexander  W. ,  Foster  Blodget t's  case I — 707,  719 

Seward,  Frederick  W.,  practice  in  appointments I — 650 

Sherman,  WUliam  T.,  tender  of  War  Office 1—460,498,517 

Thomas,  Lorenzo,  appointment;  acts;   conversations 1—415,  452 

Welles,  Edgar  T.,  form  of  commission;  troops I — 704 

Welles,  Gideon,  troops ;  cabinet  counsels I — 663 

Zider,  Henry  F.,  President's  St.  Louia  speech I — 643 


Yates,  Richard,  senator  from  Illinois I — 12 

remarks  by 1—610,718,739.    11-3,12,13,140,266,479 

order  by — 
that  four  of  managers  and  counsel  be  permitted  to  make  printed,  written,  or  oral  arguments,  the 

manager  to  have  opening  and  closing,  subject  to  Rule  XXI ;  offered II — 12 

•disagreed  to,  (yeas,  18,  nays  31) II — 13 

opinion  on  the  case Ill — 102 

Yeas  and  uays  on — 

adjournment 1—276,298,390,489,490 

adjournment  over 1—336,371.     11—471,488,489,494,495 

admissibility  of  Adjutant  General  Thomas's  declarations  to  Walter  A.  Burleigh,  (yeas  39,  nays  11).. 1 — 209 

to  clerks  of  War  Department,  (yeas  28,  nays  22) I — 214 

of  President's  letter  to  General  Grant,  without  enclosures,  (yeas  29,  nays  20) I — 247 

of  testimony  relating  to  appointment  of  Edmund  Cooper,  (yeas  22,  nays  27) 1 — 268 

of  telegrams  between  President  and  Lewis  E.  Parsons,  (yeas  27,  uays  17) I — 276 

of  Leader's  report  of  President's  speech  at  Cleveland,  (yeas  35,  nays  11) I — 325 

of  President's  declarations  to  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  February  21,  (yeas  42.  nays  10) 1 — 426 

of  President's  conversation  with  General  Sherman,  (yeas  23,  nays  28) I — ^81 

in  regard  to  tender  of  War  Office,  (yeas  23,  nays  29) I — 484 

of  President's  declarations  to  General  Sherman — 

of  purpose  to  get  case  before  the  courts,  (yeas  7,  nays  44) I — 487 

of  purpose  in  tendering  him  the  War  Office,  (yeas  25,  nays  27) I — 488 

of  Whether  General  Sherman  gave  President  an  opinion  as  to  advisability  of  a  change  iu  the  War 

Office,  (yeas  15,  nays  35) I — 507 

of  advice  by  General  Sherman  to  President  to  appoint,  &c.,  (yeas  18,  nays  32) I — 508 

of  affidavit  and  warrant  of  arrest  of  Lorenzo  Thomas,  (yeas  34,  nays  17) I — 515 

of  Whether  Presidnnt  stated  to  General  Sherman  his  purpose  in  tendering  him  the  office  of  Secre- 
tary of  War  ad  interim,  (yeas  26,  nays  22) I — 518 

of  Presideat's  declaration  of  purpose  to  General  Sherman  in  tendering  him  the  office  of  Secretary 

of  War  ad  interim,  (yeas  26,  nays  25) I — 521 

of  extracts  from  records  of  Kavy  Department,  (yeas  36,  nays  15) 1 — 568 


XXII  INDEX. 

Yeas  and  nays  on  admissibility — 

of  employment  of  counsel  by  President  to  get  up  tept  case,  (yeas  29,  nays  21"' 1 — 605 

of  acts  by  counsel  toward  getting  out  habeas  corpus  in  the  case  of  Thomas,  (j-eas  27,  nays  23) I — 609 

of  acts  done  subsequently  to  test  Sir.  Stuntou's  right,  &c.,  (yeas  27,  nays  2;i) I — 612 

of  President's  deelurations  to  Mr.  Perrin,  February  21,  (yeas  U,  nays  37) 1 — 628 

to  Secretary  Welles,  February  21,  (yeas  26,  nays  23) 1—674 

of  advice  to  President  by  cabinet  as  to  constitutionality  of  teuure-of-office  act,  (yeas  20,  nays 29)  ..1 — 693 

of  advice  as  to  construction  cf  tenure-of-office  act,  (yeas  22,  nays  26) I — 697 

of  cabinet  consultations  in  regard  to  obtaining  u  judicial  decision,  &c.,  (yeas  19,  nays  30) '. I — 700 

in  regard  to  use  of  force,  (yeas  lc<,  nays  20) I — 701 

of  opinions  given  to  Presideiit  by  cabinet  as  to  scope  of  tenure-of-office  act,  (yeas  20,  nays  26) I — 716 

of  nominations  of  Lieutenant  General  Sherman  and  JIajor  General  Thomas  to  be  generals  by 

brevet,  (yeas  14,  nays  35) I — 738 

appeals  from  decisions  of  Chief  Justice II — 1,88.     Ill — 3U4 

application  of  counsel  for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial,  (yeas  12,  nays  41) 1 — 82 

argument,  rule  jjreseribing  order  of II — 4,  5,  8,  12,  13,  14 

censure  of  Mr.  Nelson, -tabling  order  of,  (yeas  .12,  nays  17) II — 307 

Chief  Justice,  authority  of,  to  rule  questions  of  evidence I — 186 

authority  of,  to  vote 1—185 

consultation,  motion  to  retire  for I — 8o,  185 

court  of  impeachment,  unconstitutionality  of,  (j-eas  2,  nays  49) i — 36 

impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  resolution  (in  House)  for  the,  (yeas  126,  nays  47) I — 2 

resolution  (in  House)  ,to  prepare  articles  of,  (yeas  126,  nays  42) I — 2,  3 

rule  (in  House)  limiting  debate,  when  articles  of,  are  reported,  (3'eas  106,  nays  37) I — 3 

order  for  trial  to  proceed  forthwith  upon  filing  replication,  (yeas  25,  nays  26) 1 — 25 

immediately  after  replication  filed,  (yeas  40,  nays  10) I — 33 

for  respondent  to  file  answer  before  20th  March,  (yeas  28,  nays  20;  and  yeas  23,  nays  27) I — .35 

in  respect  to  unconstitutionality  of  court  of  impeachment,  (yeas  2,  nays  49) I — 36 

postponing  application  for  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial,  (yeas  25,  nays  28 ;  ani  yeas  9,  nays  42). I — 81, 86 

directing  trial  to  commence  30th  March,  (yeas  28,  nays  24) I— ^ 

denying  authority  of  Chief  Justice  to  vote,  (yeas  22,  nays  26) I — 185 

denying  authority  of  Chief  Justice  to  give  casting  vote,  (yeas  22,  nays  27) It-187 

denying  privilege  of  Chief  Justice  to  rule  questions  of  law,  (yeas  20,  nays  30) I — 186 

directing  questions  to  be  submitted  to  Senate,  on  request,  (yeas  31,  nays  19) I — 86 

mode  of  procedure  on  final  argument 1 1 — 498,  535,  536.    II — 4, 5,  8, 12, 13,  1 4 

fixing  hour  of  meeting I — 536,  (>33.     II — 141,308 

proposing  to  receive  all  evidence,  not  trivial,  without  objection 1—590 

for  reporting  deliberations  on  final  question II — 188,474 

fixing  day  for  final  vote II — 476,  477 

for  filing  opinions II — 477 

prescribing  form  of  final  question II — 478,  479 

directing  vote  to  be  taken  on  eleventh  article  first,  (yeas  34,  nays  19) II — 484,  485 

question,  final,  of  "  Guilty"  or  "Not  guilty"— 

on  Article  XI,  (yeas  35,  nays  19) 11—486,  487 

II,  (yeas  35,  nays  19) 11—496 

III,  (yeas  35,  nays  19) 11—497 

as. 

Zider,  Henry  F.     (See  Testimony.) 


PKELIMIMRY  PROCEEDLXGS  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 
m  THE  IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDKEA¥  JOHNSON, 

PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

FOR  HIGH  CRIMES  AND  MISDEMEANORS. 


FORTIETH  CONGRESS.  SECOND  SESSION.-Hon,  SCHTJYLEE  COLFAX,  Speaker. 


In  THE  House  of  Eepresentatives, 

Friday,  February  21,  1868. 
Mr.  CovoDE.  I  rise  to  a  privileged  question.     I  offer  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  Andrew  Johnson,  Pregideut  of  the  Uuit^ed  States,  be  impeached  of  high  crimes  and  misde- 
meanors. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  object. 

The  Speaker.  It  is  a  privileged  question. 

Mr.  BoUTWELL.  I  move  to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction.  The  motion  was 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  CovoDE  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  resolution  was  referred  ;  and  also 
moved  to  lay  the  motion  to  reconsider  on  the  table.     The  latter  motion  was  agreed  to. 


Saturday,  February  22,  1868. 
Mr.  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  presented  from  the  Committee  on  Reconstriiction  the  fol- 
lowing report,  with  an  accompanying  resolution  ;  which  was  considered : 

The  Committee  on  Reconstruction,  to  whom  was  referred,  on  the  27th  day  of  January  last,  the  following 
resolution : 

Resolced.  That  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction  be  authorized  to  inquire  what  combinations  have  been 
made  or  attempted  to  be  made  to  obstruct  the  due  execution  of  the  laws ;  and  to  that  end  the  committee  have 
power  to  send  for  per.sous  and  papers  and  to  examine  witnesses  on  oath,  and  report  to  this  house  what  action, 
if  any,  they  may  deem  necessary  ;  and  that  said  committee  have  leave  to  report  at  any  time. 

And  to  whom  was  also  referred,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  instant,  a  communication  from  Hon.  Edwin 
M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  dated  on  said  2l3t  day  of  February,  together  with  a  copy  of  a  letter  from 
Andr&w  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  aa  follows : 

Executive  Mansion, 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  21,  1868. 
Sill:  By  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  me,  as  President,  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  you  are  hereby  removed  from  office  as  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  and  your  func- 
tions as  such  will  terminate  xipou  the  receipt  of  (his  communication. 

You  will  transfer  to  Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjntant  General  of  the  army,  who  has  this 
day  been  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  inUritn,  all  records,  books,  papers,  and 
other  public  property  now  in  your  custody  aud  charge 
Respectfully,  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Washington,  D.  C. 

And  to  whom  was  also  referred  by  the  House  of  Representatives  the  following  resolution,  namely  : 
Risolved,  That  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  be  impeached  for  high  crimes  and  misde- 
m»'anors — 

Have  considered  the  several  subjects  referred  to  them,  and  submit  the  following  report: 
That  in  addition  to  the  papers  referred  to  the  committee,  the  committee  find  that  the  President,  on  the  2lst  day 
of  Ffbruary,  1668,  signed  and  issued  a  commission  or  letter  of  authority  to  one  Lorenzo  Thomas,  directing  and 
authorizing  said  Thomas  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  to  take  possession  of  the  books,  records, 
and  papers,  and  other  public  property  ia  the  War  Department,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy : 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  February  21,  1868. 
Sir  :  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  removed  from  office  as  .Secretary  for  the  Department  of 
War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  aud  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  will  immediately 


2  PRELIMINARY    PROCEEDINGS    IN 

enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  iiertaiuiug  to  tliat  office.     Mr.  Stuuton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to 
you  all  the  records,   books,  papers,  and  other  public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 
Respectfulh-   yours, 

ANDraCW  JOHN\SOX. 
Brevet  Major  General  LORKNZO  Thomas, 

Adjutant  General  U.  S.  Army,  Waslihiglon,  D.  C. 

Official  copy  respectlully  furnished  to  Hon.  E.  M.  Stanton. 

L.  THOMAS, 
Secretary  of  U'ar  ad  interim. 

Upon  the  evidence  collected  by  the  committee,  which  is  herewith  presented,  and  in  virtue  of  the  powers 
with  which  thi-y  have  been  invested  by  the  House,  they  are  of  the  opinion  that  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of 
the  United  States,  be  impeached  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.  They  therefore  recommend  to  the  House 
the  adoption  of  the  accompanying  resolution. 

THADDEUS  STEVENS. 

GKOKGE  S.  BOUT  WELL. 

JOHN  A.  BINGHAM. 

C.  T.  HULBURD. 

JOHN  F.  FAltN.SWORTH. 

F.  C.  Bi:.\MAN. 

H.  E.  PAINE. 

Resolution  proviJiug  for  tlie  iiiipeacliment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United 
States : 

Resolved,  That  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  be  impeached  of  high  crimes  and  misde- 
meanors in  office. 


Monday,  February  24,  1868. 

The  House  met  at  ten  o'clock,  and  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  reported  by 
the  Committee  on  Reconstruction. 

After  debate,  the  question  was  taken,  and  it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas,  126; 
nays,  47;  not  voting,  17;  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Allison,  Ames,  Anderson,  Arnell,  Delos  R.  Ashley,  James  M.  Ashjey,  Bailey,  Baker,  Bald- 
win. Banks,  Beamau,  Beatty.  Benton,  Bingham,  Blaine,  Blair.  Boutwell,  Broniwell,  Broomall.  Buckland, 
Butler,  Cake,  Churchill,  Reader  W.  Clarke,  Sidney  Clarke,  Cobb.  Coburn,  Cook,  Cornell,  Covode,  Cullom, 
Dawes,  Dodge,  Driggs,  Eekley,  Eggleston,  Eliot,  Farnsworth,  Ferriss,  Ferry,  Fields,  Gravely,  Griswold, 
Halsey,  Harding,  Higby,  Hill,  Hooper.  Hopkins,  Asahel  W.  Hubbard.  Chester  D.  Hubbard,  Hulburd,  Hunter, 
Ingersoll,  Jenckes,  Judd,  Julian,  Kelley,  Kelsey,  Ketcham,  Kitchen.  Laflin,  Geo-ge  V.  Lawrence,  William 
Lawrence,  Lincoln.  Loan,  Logan,  Loughridge,  Lynch,  Mallory,  Marvin,  McCarthj-,  McClurg.  Mercur,  Miller, 
Moore,  Moorhead,  Morrell,  MuUins,  Myers,  Newcomb,  Nunn,  O'Neill,  Ortb,  Paine,  Perham,  Peters,  Pike, Pile, 
Plants,  Poland,  Polsley,  Price,  Rauni,  Robertson,  Sawyer,  Schenck,  Scofield,  Selye,  Shanks,  Smith,  Spalding, 
Starkwe.atber,  Aaron  F.  Stevens,  Tliaddeus  Stevens,  Stokes,  TafTe,  Taylor,  Trowbridge,  Twiehell,  Upson, 
Van  Aerpam,  Burt  Van  Horn,  Van  Wyek,  Ward,  Cadwalader  C.  Washburn,  EUihu  B.  Wasliburne,  William 
B.  Wasliburu,  Wclker,  Thomas  Williams,  James  F.  Wilson,  John  T.  WiUon,  Stephen  F.  Wilson,  Windom, 
Woodl)ridge.  and  the  Speaker — 126. 

Nays— Messrs.  Adams,  Archer,  Axtell,  Barnes,  Banium,  Beck,  Boyer,  Brooks,  Burr,  Gary.  Chanler,  El- 
dridge,  Fox,  Getz,  Glossbrenner,  GoUaday,  Grover,  Haight,  Holnian.  Hotchkiss,  Richard  D.  Hubbard.  Hum- 
phrey, Johnson,  Jones,  Kerr,  Knott,  Marshall,  MeCormick,  McCulloeh,  Morgan,  Morrisscy.  IMnngen,  Niblack, 
Nicholson,  Phelps,  Pruyu,  Randall,  Ross,  Sitgreaves,  Stewart,  Stone,  Taber,  Lawrence  S.  Trimble,  Van 
Auken,  Van  Trump,  Wood,  and  Woodward — 47. 

Not  voting— Messrs.  Benjamin,  Dixon,  Donnelly,  Ela,  Finney,  Garfield,  Hawkins,  Koontz,  Maynard, 
Pomeroy,  Robinson,  Shellabarger,  Thomas,  John  Trimble,  Robert  T.  Van  Horn,  Henry  D.  Washburn,  and 
William  Williams— 17. 

When  the  roll-call  had  been  concluded. 

The  Sl'E.'iKER  said :  The  occupant  of  the  chair  cannot  consent  that  his  constituents  should 
be  silent  on  so  grave  a  question,  and  therefore,  as  a  member  of  tliis  hou.se,  he  votes  "ay." 
On  agreeing  to  the  resolution,  there  are  yeas  12(5,  nays  47.     So  the  resolution  is  adopted. 

Mr.  Stkvi:ns,  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  submit  the  following  resolutions,  on 
which  I  demand  the  previous  question : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  two  be  appointed  to  go  to  the  Senate;  and  at  the  bar  thereof,  in  the  name 
of  the  House  of  Ri-prcsentatives  and  of  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  impeach  Andrew  Johnson, 
President  of  the  United  States,  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  in  office,  and  acquaint  the  Senate  that  the 
House  of  Representatives  will,  in  due  time,  exhibit  particular  articles  of  impeachment  against  him  and  make 
good  the  same ;  and  that  the  committee  do  demand  that  the  Senatj  take  order  for  the  appearance  of  said 
Andrew  Johnson  to  answer  to  said  impeachment. 

2.  Rcaolved,  That  a  connnittee  of  seven  be  appointed  to  prepare  and  report  articles  of  inii)cachment  against 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  with  power  to  send  for  persons,  papers,  and  records,  and  to 
take  testimony  under  oath. 

After  the  rules  had  been  suspended,  the  question  was  taken  on  the  resolutions,  and  it  was 
decided  in  the  affirmative — y<;as,  124;  nays,  42;  not  voting,  2:5;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Allison,  Ames,  Anderson,  Arnell,  Delos  R.  Ashley,  James  M.  Ashley,  Bailey,  Baker, 
Baldwin,* Banks,  Beamau,  Beatty.  Bentnn,  Bingham,  Blaine,  Blair,  Boutwell,  Bromwell,  Broomall,  IJucklaud, 
Butler,  Cake,  Gary.  Churchill,  Rea<ler  W.  Clarke,  Sidney  Clwke,  Cobb,  Coburn,  Cook,  Cornell,  Covode, 
Cullom,  Dawes,  Dodge,  Driggs,  Eekley,  Eggleston,  Elliot,  FarnsWdrth,  Ferriss,  Ferry,  Fields,  (iravely,  Gris- 
wold, Halsey,  Harding,  Higby,  llill,  Hooper,  Hopkins,  Chester D.  Hubbard,  Hulburd,  HuntiM-,  Inger.soll,  Jenckes, 
Judd',  Julian,  KilUy,  Kilsey,  Ketcham,  Kitchen,  Liitlin,  George  V.  Lawrence,  William  Lawrence,  Lincoln, Loan, 
Logan,  I^oiigluiilt,'!'"  Lynch,  .Mallory,  Marvin,  McCarthy,  Me(_;iurg,  Mercur,  Miller,  Jloore,  Monrhead,  Morrell, 
Mullins,  .Myirs,  Xcwcomli,  Nunn,  O'Neill,  (Jrth,  Paine,  IVrham,  Peters,  Pike,  Pile,  Poland,  Polsley,  Price,  Rauni, 
Robertson,  Sawyer,  Selienek,  Scofield,  Selye,  Shanks,  Smith,  SjiMlding,  Starkweather,  Aaron  F.  Stevens, 
Thaddeus  Stevens,  Stokes,  Taffe,  Taylor,  Trowbridge,  'rwiehell,  Upson,  Van  .Virnam,  Burt  Van  Horn,  Van 
Wyck,  Ward,  Cadwalader  C.  Washburn,  EUihu  B.  Wasliburne,  William  B.  Washburn,  Welker,  Thomas  Wil- 
iums,   James  F.  Wilson,  John  T.  Wilson,  Stephen  F.  Wilson,  Wiudom,  and  Woodbridge — 124. 


THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES.  6 

Kays— ^Icusrs.  Atlams,  Aivlipr,  AxtoU.TlMini's,  H:inmni,  Bock,  Boyer,  Brooks,  Burr,  Eldridge,  Gefz,  Gloss- 
brciiiuT,  (idUa.lav.  Crovir,  Ilaiylit,  Holinaii,  lli'tclikiss,  lluniphrcy,  Johnson,  Jones,  Kerr,  Knott,  Miu-Bliall, 
JIcC'iTuiiek,  Jk-Ciillou<!-h,  Miiipui,  Monisscy,  Miiiigcn,  Nibhiek,  Nicholson,  I'helps,  Pniyn,  Ksindall,  lioss,  Sit- 
greavis,  Stmie,  Tiibfr,  Lawrence  S.  Trimble,  Van  Aukeu,  Van  Trump,  Wood,  and  Woodward — 42. 

Mor  VOTINO— Messrs.  Benjamin,  Chanler,  Dixon,  Donnelly,  Ela,  Finney,  Fox,  Garfield,  Hawkins,  Asahel  W. 
Hubbard,  Hiehard  D.  Hubbard,  Koontz,  Jlaynard,  Plants,  Ponieroy,  Uobinson,  Sheilaliarger,  Stewart,  Thomas. 
John  Trimble,  Robert  T.  Vau  Horn,  Henry  D.  Washburn,  and  William  Williams— 23. 

Messrs.  Kooutz  and  Thomas,  who  were  unavoiJubly  absent,  were  the  next  day  permitted 
to  record  their  votes  in  the  affirmative,  so  that  the  vote,  as  thus  amended,  stood,  yeas,  126  ; 
nays,  42;  not  voting,  21. 

The  Speaker  announced  the  following  committees  under  the  resolutions  just  adopted  : 

Committee  to  coinmunirate  to  the  Seniitc  the  action  of  the  House  ordering  an  impeachment  of 
the  rresident  of  the  United  S^/<es.— Thaddeus  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  John  A.  Bing- 
ham, of  Ohio. 

Committee  to  declare  articles  of  impeachment  against  the  President  of  the  United  States. — 
George  8.  BoutwcU.  of  Massachusetts  ;  Thaddeus  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania;  John  A.  Bing- 
ham, of  Ohio;  James  F.  Wilson,  of  Iowa  ;  John  A.  Logan,  of  Illinois;  George  W.Julian, 
of  Indiana;  and  Hamilton  Ward,  of  New  York. 


Tuesday,  Fthruary  25,  1868. 

Mr.  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Mr.  Bingham,  the  committee  appointed  to  communi- 
cate to  the  Senate  the  action  of  the  House  ordering  an  impeachment  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  appeared  at  the  bar  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  said:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  obedience  to  the  order  of  the 
House,  Ave  proceeded  to  the  bar  of  the  Senate,  and  in  the  name  of  this  body  and  of  all  the 
people  of  the  United  States  we  impeached,  as  we  were  directed  to  do,  Andrew  Johnson, 
President  of  the  United  States,  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  in  office,  and  we  demanded 
that  the  Senate  should  take  order  to  make  him  appear  before  that  body  to  answer  for  the 
same ;  and  announced  that  the  House  would  soon  present  articles  of  impeachment  and  make 
them  good;  to  which  the  response  was,  "Order  shall  be  taken." 

Mr.  Washburne,  of  Illinois.     I  ask  unanimous  consent  to  oiler  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  rules  be  suspended,  and  that  It  is  hereby  ordered  as  follows : 

When  the  committee  to  prepare  articles  of  impeachment  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  report  the 
said  articles  the  House  shall  immediately  resolve  itself  into  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  thereon  ;  that  speeches 
in  committee  shall  be  limited  to  fifteen  minutes  each,  which  debate  shall  continue  till  the  next  legislative  day 
after  the  report,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  business  except  the  reading  of  the  journal ;  that  at  three  o'clock 
on  the  afternoon  of  said  second  day  the  tifteen-minute  debate  shall  cease,  and  the  committee  shall  then  proceed 
to  consider  and  vote  upon  amendments  that  may  be  offered  under  the  five-minute  rule  of  debate;  but  no 
merely  pro  forma  amendment  shall  be  entertained ;  that  at  four  o'clock  on  the  afternoon  of  said  second  day 
the  committee  shall  rise  and  report  their  action  to  the  House,  which  shall  immediately  and  without  dilatory 
motions  vote  thereon ;  that  if  the  articles  of  impeachment  are  agreed  on,  the  House  shall  then  immediately 
and  without  dilatory  motions  elect  by  ballot  seven  managers  to  conduct  said  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the 
House ;  and  that  during  the  pendency  of  resolutions  in  the  House  relative  to  said  impeachment  thereafter  no 
dilatory  motions  shall  be  received  except  one  motion  on  each  day  that  the  House  do  now  adjourn. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  object. 

Mr.  Wasiibi'Rne,  of  Illinois.  I  move  to  suspend  the  rules  for  the  purpose  of  considering 
the  resolution  at  this  time. 

After  debate,  the  question  was  taken,  and  it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas,  106; 
nays,  '.M ;  not  voting,  46.  So  (two-thirds  voting  in  the  affirmative)  the  rules  were  sus- 
pended, and  the  resolution  was  adopted. 


Saturday,  February  29,  1868. 

Mr.  BoUTWELL.  I  rise  to  a  privileged  question.  The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  and 
report  articles  of  impeachment  against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States, 
have  instructed  me  to  make  a  report,  which  I  send  to  the  Clerk's  desk. 

The  Clerk  read  10  articles  to  be  exhibited  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  name  of  themselves  and  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  against  Andrew 
Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  in  maintenance  and  support  of  their  impeachment 
against  him  for  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  in  office.  These  articles,  as  tinally  amended 
and  adopted,  will  be  found  on  pages  6-9  of  this  volume.  The  debate  on  them  is  reported  in 
the  Congressional  Globe,  fortieth  Congress,  second  session. 

The  House,  in  accordance  with  its  order  of  February  25,  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  (Mr.  Washburne,  of  Illinois,  in  the  chair,)  and  proceeded  to  consider  the 
report  of  the  committee  to  prepare  articles  of  impeachment  against  the  President  of  the 
United  States. 


4  PRELIMINARY   PROCEEDINGS,    ETC. 

Monday,  March  2,  1868. 

The  House  resolved  itself  iuto  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  (Mr.  ScofielJ  lu  the  chair,) 
aud  continued  the  cousideratiou  of  the  report  of  the  committee  to  prepare  articles  of  impeach- 
ment, wliii'h  were  afterwards  adopted  by  a  separate  vote  on  each. 

Tlie  Si'KAKER.  Under  the  order  adopted  on  the  25th  of  Februaiy,  the  House  will  now 
elect  by  ballot  seven  managers  to  conduct  the  impeachment  before  the  Senate.  Nomina- 
tions are  now  in  order. 

Nominations  were  made  and  the  House  proceeded  to  ballot,  the  Chair  having  appointed  as 
tellers  to  conduct  the  election  Messrs.  Poland,  Spalding,  Jenckcs,  and  Blair. 

Tke  Speakek.  The  following  gentlemen  having  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  by 
ballot  for  the  election  of  nuuiagcrs  to  conduct  the  impeachment  of  the  Presideirt  of  the  United 
States,  namely:  John  A.  Bingham,  George  S.  Boutwell,  James  F.  Wilson,  Benjamin  F. 
Butler,  Thomas  Williams,  Thaddeus  Stevens,  and  John  A.  Logan,  I  declare  them  elected  as 
such. 

Mr.  Boutwell.  I  beg  leave  to  present  the  following  resolution,  and  on  it  I  demand  the 
previous  question: 

Rcsolced,  That  a  message  be  sent  to  the  Senate  to  inform  them  that  this*  hoiise  have  appointed  managers  to 
conduct  the  impeachment  against  the  President  of  the  L^uited  States,  and  have  directed  the  said  managers  to 
carry  to  the  Senate  the  articles  agreed  upon  by  this  house,  to  be  exhibited  in  maintenance  of  their  impeach- 
ment against  said  Andrew  Johnson,  and  that  the  Clerk  of  the  House  do  go  with  said  message. 

The  previous  question  was  seconded  and  the  main  question  ordered  ;  and  under  the  opera- 
tion thereof  the  resolution  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Boutwell.  I  further  offer  the  following  resolution,  aud  on  it  demand  the  previous 
question : 

Resolved,  That  the  articles  agreed  to  by  this  house,  to  be  exhibited  in  the  name  of  themselves  and  of  all  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  in  maintenance  of  their 
impeachment  against  him  of  high  crimes  aud  misdemeanors  in  office,  be  carried  to  the  Senate  by  the  managers 
appointed  to  conduct  said  impeachment. 

The  previous  question  was  seconded  and  the  main  question  ordered;  and  under  the  opera- 
tion thereof  the  resolution  was  agreed  to. 


Tuesday,  March  3,  1868. 
The  Speaker  laid  before  the  House  the  following : 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  March  3,  1868. 
Ordered,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  inform  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate  is  ready  to 
receive  the  managers  appointed  by  the  House  di  Representatives  to  carry  to  the  Senate  articles  of  impeach- 
ment against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  Speaker.  The  message  will  be  entered  upon  the  journal  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Butler  reported  an  additional  article  of  impeachment,  which  he  was  instructed  by 
the  board  of  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  to  present :  it  was  considered  and  adopted. 

Mr.  Bingham  offered  the  following  resolutions,  which  were  considered  and  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  the  articles  agreed  to  by  the  House  this  day,  together  with  those  adopted  by  the  House  ou 
yesterday,  to  be  exhibited' in  the  name  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  of  all  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  in  maintenance  of  their  impeachment  against 
him  for  high  crimes  aud  misdemeanors  in  office,  be  carried  to  the  Senate  by  the  managers  appointed  to  con- 
duct said  imjieachment. 

Resolved,,  That  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  Hou.se,  in  the  matter  of  the  Impeachment  of  the  President, 
be,  and  hereby  are,  authorized  to  appoint  a  clerk  and  a  messenger,  to  be  paid  for  their  services  at  the  usual 
rates  during  the  time  that  they  are  employed ;  and  that  the  managers  have  power  to  send  for  persons  and 
papers. 


Wednesday,  March  4,  1868. 

Mr.  Bingham  offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was  considered  and  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  House  resolve  itself  into  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  attiiul  the  nmnagers 
a)i])ointed  by  liie  House  to  tlie  .Senate  to  present  by  its  managers  the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibiteil  by 
tlic  House  against  Andrew  Johnson,  I'resideut  of  the  United  .States. 

The  Speaker.  In  (he  ab.sence  of  the  senior  member  of  the  House,  Mr.  Washburne,  of 
Illinois,  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Dawes,  will  j)lease  take  the  ciiair  in  Coui- 
jiiitliM^  of  the  Whole.  Tin-  Committee  of  the  Whole,  preceded  l)y  its  chairman,  who  will  be 
Kup|)(irt<'ii  by  the  Clerk  and  Doorkia-))er,  will  follow  the  managers  to  the  Senate  chamber. 

Accordingly,  at  1  o'clock  p.  m  ,  the  House,  as  in  the  Couunittee  of  the  Whole,  pre- 
ceded by  its  chairman,  Mr.  Dawes,  who  wm  supported  by  the  Clerk  and  Doorkeeper  of  the 
House,  followed  the  managers  of  the  House  to  the  Senate  chamber. 

[See  the  2>roceedings  of  the  Senate.] 


PEELIMINART  PROCEEDINGS  IN  THE  SENATE  ' 

IN  THE  IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON, 

PRESIDENT  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

FOR  HIGH  CRIMES  AND  MISDEMEANORS. 


FORTIETH  CONGRESS,  SECOND  SESSION.-Hon,  BENJAMIN  F.  WADE,  President  pro  tern. 


Tuesday,  Fcbruanj  25,  1868. 

Mr.  Representative  Stevens  and  Mr.  Representative  Bingham  appeared  at  the  bar  of  the 
Senate,  and  were  announced  as  the  committee  from  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Stevens.  Mr.  President,  in  obedience  to  the  order  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
we  appear  before  you,  and  in  the  name  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  of  all  the  people 
of  the  United  States  we  do  impeach  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  of  high 
crimes  aud  misdemeanors  in  office ;  and  we  further  inform  the  Senate  that  the  House  of 
Representatives  will  in  due  time  exhibit  particular  articles  of  impeachment  against  him  and 
make  good  the  same  ;  and  in  their  name  we  demand  that  the  Senate  take  order  for  the  appear- 
ance of  the  said  Andrew  Johnson  to  answer  said  impeachment. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  The  Senate  will  take  order  in  the  premises. 

The  committee  of  the  House  thereupon  withdrew. 

Mr.  Howard,  by  unanimous  consent,  submitted  the  following  resoh^tion,  which  was  read, 
considered,  amended,  and  agreed  to: 

Resolved,  That  the  message  of  the  House  of  Representatives  relating  to  the  impeaohment  of  Andrew  John- 
son, President  of  the  United  States,  be  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  seven,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Chair, 
to  consider  and  report  thereon. 

The  President  pro  tempore  subsequently  announced  the  committee,  to  consist  of  the  fol- 
lowing senators:  Mr.  Howard,  Mr.  Trumbull,  Mr.  Conkliug,  Mr.  Edmunds,  Mr.  Morton, 
Mr.  Pomeroy,  and  Mr.  Johnson. 


Wednesday,  February  26,  1868. 

Mr.  Howard,  from  the  select  committee  appointed  to  consider  and  report  upon  the  message 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  relation  to  the  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  reported  the  following  resolution : 

Whereas  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  25th  day  of  the  present  month,  by  two  of  their  members, 
Messrs.  Thaddeus  Stevens  .and  John  A.  Bingh.im,  at  the  bar  of  the  .Senate,  impeaf-hed  Andrew  Johnson,  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  in  office,  and  inform. -d  tlie  Senate  that  the  House 
of  Representatives  will  in  due  time  exhibit  particular  articles  of  impeachment  a^Minst  hira  and  nmke  good  the 
same ;  and  likewise  demanded  that  the  Senate  take  order  for  the  appcirauce  of  said  Andrew  Johnson  to 
answer  to  the  said  impeachment :  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  Senate  will  take  proper  order  thereon,  of  which  due  notice  shall  be  given  to  the  Hotise 
of  Representatives. 

And  the  committee  further  recommend  to  the  Senate  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  be 
directed  to  notify  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  foregoing  resolution. 

The  resolution  was  considered  by  unanimous  consent,  and  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  ask  that  an  order  be  made  directing  the  Secretary  to  transmit  the  resolu- 
tion just  adopted,  which  is  in  the  usual  form,  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  That  will  be  done,  as  a  matter  of  course,  without  any  formal 
order. 


b  PRELIMINARY    PROCEEDINGS 

Friday,  February  28,  1868. 
The  Senate  postponed  all  other  business,  and  proceeded  to  consider  the  report  of  tlie  select 
committee  respectino-  iiiipeachmeut,  presented  by  Mr.  Howard.  It  embraced  the  rules 
of  procedure  and  .practice  in  the  Senate  when  sitting  for  the  trial  of  an  impeachment ; 
which,  after  discussion  and  amendment,  were  adopted  on  March  2, 1868.  They  will  be  found 
on  pages  12-15  of  this  volume. 


Wednesday,  March  4,  1863. 

The  manage;^;  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  appeared 
at  the  l)ar,  and  their  presence  was  announced  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms. 

Tlie  Viiv.MDV.'ST  pro  tempore.  The  managers  of  the  impeachment  will  advance  within  the 
bar  and  take  the  seats  provided  for  them. 

The  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  came  within  the  bar  and  took 
the  seats  assigned  to  them  in  the  area  in  front  of  the  Chair. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  the  managers  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
by  order  of  the  House,  are  ready  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate,  whenever  it  may  please  the  Senate 
to  hear  them,  to  present  articles  of  impeachment  and  in  maintenance  of  the  impeach- 
ment preferred  against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  by  the  House  of 
Representatives. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  make  proclamatiofi. 

The  Sergeant- AT-ARMS.  Hear  ye!  hear  ye !  hear  ye!  All  persons  are  commanded  to 
keep  silence,  on  pain  of  imprisonment,  while  the  House  of  Representatives  is  exhibiting  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  articles  of  impeachment  against  Andrew  Johnson,  President 
of  the  United  States. 

The  managers  then  rose  and  remained  standing,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Stevens,  who 
was  physically  unable  to  do  so,  while  Mr.  ilanager  Bingham  read  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment, as  follows :  ' 

Articles  erltibited  by  titc  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  in  the  name  of  them- 
selves and  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  uuninst  Andreio  Johnson,  President  of  the 
United  States,  in  maintenance  and  support  of  their  impeachment  against  him  for  high  crimes 
and  misdemeanors  in  o£icc. 

Article  I. 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  February,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty -eight,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  unmindful 
of  the  high  duties  of  his  office,  of  his  oath  of  ofhee,  and  of  the  requirement  of  the  Constitution  that  he  should 
talie  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  did  unlawfully,  and  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States  issue  an  order  in  writing  for  the  rcinoval  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  the  office  of 
Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton*  having  been  theretofore  duly  appointed  and 
commissioned,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  of  thi;  United  States,  as  such  Secretary,  and 
said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  twelfth  day  of  August,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  and  during  the  recess  of  said  Senate,  having  suspended  by  his 
order  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  said  office,  and  within  twenty  days  after  the  first  day  of  the  next  met  ting  of 
said  Senate,  tliat  is  to  say,  on  the  twelfth  day  of  December  in  tlie  year  last  aforesaid  haviug  reported  to  said 
Senate  such  suspension  with  the  evidence  and  reasons  for  his  action  in  the  case  and  the  name  of  tlie  person 
designated  to  perform  the  duties  of  such  office  temporarily  until  the  next  meeting  of  tlie  Senate,  and  said  Senate 
then-afterwards,  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
sixty-eight,  luiving  duly  considered  the  evidence  and  reasons  reported  by  said  Andrew  Johnson  for  said  sus- 
pension, and  having  refused  to  concur  in  said  suspension,  whereby  and  by  force  of  the  provisions  of  an  act 
entitled  "  An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  othces,"  passed  March  second,  eigliteen  hundred  imd 
sixty-seven,  said  Kdwin  M.  Stanton  did  forthwith  resume  the  functions  of  his  office,  whereof  the  said  Andrew 
Johnson  liad  then  and  tlure  due  notice,  and  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  by  reason  of  the  premises,  on  said  twenty- 
first  day  of  Febi-uary,  being  lawfully  entitled  to  hold  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War, 
which  said  order  for  the  removal  of  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton  is  in  substance  as  follows,  tliat  is  to  say : 

"Executive  JIansion, 
"  Washington,  D.  C,  February  21,  18(58. 
"SIR:  By  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  me  as  President  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  llie 
United  States  you  are  hereby  removed  from  office  as  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  and  your  fuuctious 
as  such  will  terminate  upon  the  receipt  of  this  communication. 

"  You  will  transfer  to  Hrevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutaiit  General  of  the  army,  who  has 
this  day  been  authorized  and  empowered,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  all  records,  books,  papers, 
and  other  public  property  now  in  your  custody  and  charge. 
"  Respectfully  yours, 

"ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
"  To  the  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Washington,  D.  C." 

Which  order  was  unlawfully  ii!sued  with  intent  then  and  there  to  violate  the  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating 
the  tcnine  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  secoud,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  and  with  the 
furtlier  intent,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  said  act,  in  violation  tlu'reof,  and  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Constituti<jn  of  the  United  States,  and  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  tlie  Senate  of  the  United  States,  the 
said  Senate  tluii  and  thenr  being  in  session,  to  nniove  said  Kdwin  M.  .Stanton  from  the  office  of  Secretary  for 
the  Department  of  War,  the  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton  being  then  and  tlure  Secretary  for  the  Department  of 
War,  and  being  tlii'ii  and  tliere  in  the  due  and  lawful  execution  and  discharge  of  the  duties  of  said  office, 
whereby  said  Andrew  .Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and  there  commit  and  was  guilty  of 
u  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 


IN    THE    SENATE.  7 

AUTICLE  ir. 

That  on  the  siiid  twnity-first  day  of  Fi'bruary,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  c'i(i;ht  hundred  and 
sixty-ei;;lit.  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  said  Andrew  Jolinson,  Presidentof  tlio  United  States, 
unmindful  (if  tiir  hifrh  duties  of  his  ofJiee,  of  his  oath  of  ofllco,  and  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
I'nited  State-;,  and  eontiary  to  the  provisions  of  an  act  entitled  "  An  act  regulating  ihe  tenure  of  certain  civil 
ottices,"  passed  .March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  vs'ithout  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate 
of  the  Ihiited  States,  said  Senate  then  and  there  being  in  session,  and  without  authority  of  law,  did,  with 
intent  to  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  act  aforesaid,  issue  and  deliver  to  one  Lorenzo 
Thomas  a  letter  of  authority  in  substance  as  follows,  tJiat  is  to  say  : 

"Executive  Mansion, 
"  Washington,  D.  C,  February 'i2\,  1808. 
"Sir:  The  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  removed  from  office  as  Secretary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  will 
immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to  that  office. 

•'Mr.  Stanton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other  pSblic  prop- 
erty now  In  his  custody  and  charge. 
"  Respectfully  yours, 

"ANDliEW  JOHNSON. 
"  To  Brevet  Major  General  LORENZO  THOMAS, 

"Adjutant  General  U.  S.  Army,  Washington,  V.  C." 
Then  and  there  being  no  vacancy  in  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  AVar,  whereby  said 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and  there  commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high  misde- 
meanor in  otKce. 

Article  HI. 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  February,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Colum'iia,  did 
commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high  misdrmeanor  in  office  in  this,  that,  without  authority  of  law,  while  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  was  then  and  there  in  session,  he  did  appoint  one  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  be  Secre- 
tary for  the  Department  of  War  ad  interim,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  with  intent  to 
violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  no  vacancy  having  happened  in  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the 
Department  of  War  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  and  no  vacancy  existing  in  said  office  at  the  time,  and 
which  said  appointment,  so  made  by  said  Andrew  Johnson,  of  said  Lorenzo  Thomas,  is  in  substance  as  follows, 
that  is  to  say  : 

"E.XECUTIVE  MAN.SION, 
"Washington,  D.  C,  February  21,  1868. 
"Sir  :  The  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  removed  from  office  as  Secn-etary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  will 
immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to  that  office. 

"Mr.  Stanton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other  public  property 
now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 

"  Respectfully  yours, 

"  ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
"To  Brefret  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas, 

''Adjutant  Geiieral  U.  S.  Army,  Washington,  D.  C." 

Article  iv. 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office  and  of 
his  oath  of  office,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of 
February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  at  Washington,  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  did  unlawfully  conspire  with  one  Lorenzo  Thomas,  and  with  other  persons  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  unknown,  with  intent,  by  intimidation  and  threats,  unlawfully  to  hinder  and  prevent  Edwin 
M.  Stanton,  then  and  there  the  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  duly  appointed  under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  from  holding  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  contrary  to  and  in  violation 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  provisions  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  define  and  punish 
certain  conspiracies,"  approved  July  thirty-first,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  whereby  said  Andrew  John- 
son, President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and  there  commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high  crime  in  office. 

Article  V. 
That  said  Andrew  Johtison,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office  and  of 
his  oath  of  office,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  sixty-eight,  and  on  divers  other  days  and  times  in  said  year,  before  the  second  day  of  March,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  did 
unlawfully  conspire  with  one  Lorenzo  Thomas,  and  with  other  persons  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
unknown,  to  prevent  and  hinder  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain 
civil  offices,"  passed  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  and  in  pursuance  of  said  conspiracj-, 
did  unlawful!}'  attempt  to  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  then  and  there  being  Secretary  for  the  Department  of 
War,  duly  appointed  and  commissioned  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  from  holding  said  otlice,  whereby 
the  said  Andrew  .Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and  there  commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high 
misdemeanor  in  office. 

Article  VL 

That  said  .\ndrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his  otlice  and 
of  his  oath  of  office,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eiglit  hundred 
and  sixty-eight,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  did  unlawfully  conspire  with  one  Lorenzo  Thomas 
by  force  to  seize,  take,  and  possess  tlie  property  of  the  United  States  in  the  Department  of  War,  and  then  and 
there  in  the  custody  and  charge  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  for  said  department,  contrary  to  the  pro- 
visions of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  define  and  punish  certain  conspiracies,"  approved  July  thirty-one, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  with  intent  to  violate  and  disregard  an  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating 
the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices."  passed  JIarch  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty  seven,  whereby  said 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and  there  commit  a  high  crime  in  office. 

Article  vn. 

That  sa'd  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office  and  of 
his  oath  of  otlice,  on  the  twentj'-iirst  da}-  of  February,  in  the  year  of  r)nr  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  sixty-eight,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  did  unlawfully  conspire  with  one  Lorenzo  Thomas 
wi'h  intent  unlawfully  to  seize,  take,  and  possess  the  property  of  the  United  States  in  the  Department  of 


5  PRELIMINARY   PROCEEDINGS 

War.  in  the  cusWdy  and  charge  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  for  said  department,  with  intent  to  violate 
iin<l  di:<rt'ganl  tlie  act  entitled  "An  act  regulatinp:  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  second, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty  seven,  whereby  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and 
there  commit  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

Article  VIII. 
That  said  Andrew  Johnson.  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office  and  of 
his  oath  of  office,  with  intent  unlawfully  to  control  the  disbursements  of  th-  moneys  appropriated  for  the  mil- 
itary service  and  for  the  Department  of  War,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  did  unlawfully  and 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed 
March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  and  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  St.-ites,  and  while  the  Senate  was  then  and  there  in 
session,  there  being  no  vacancy  in  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  and  with  intent  to  violate 
and  disregard  the  act  aforesaiil.  then  and  there  issue  and  deliver  to  one  Lorenzo  Thomas  a  letter  of  authority 
in  writing,  in  substance  as  follows,  that  is  to  say  : 

"  Executive  Mansion, 
"Washington,  D.  C,  February  21,  1B68. 
"SIR:  The  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  removed  from  office  as  Secretary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  will  im- 
mediately enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to  that  office. 

' '  Mr.  Stanton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other  public  prop  • 
erty  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 
"  Respectfully,  yours, 

"ANDREW  JOHNSON, 
"  To  Brevet  Major  General  LORENZO  THOMAS, 

"Adjutant  General  United  States  Army,  Washington,  D.  C' 

Wherebj'  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and  there  commit  and  waii  guilty 
of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

ARTICLE  IX. 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  twenty-second  dav  of  February,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  in 
disregard  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  duly  enacted,  as  commander-in-chief  of  the 
army  of  the  United  States,  did  bring  before  himself  then  and  there  William  H.  Emory,  a  major  general  by 
brevet  in  the  army  of  the  United  States,  actually  in  command  of  the  department  of  Washington  and  .he  mili- 
tary forces  thereof,  and  did  then  and  there,  as  such  commander-in-chief,  declare  to  and  instruct  said  Emory 
that  part  of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  passed  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  entitled  "An 
act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army  for  the  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-eight,  and  for  other  purposes,"  especially  the  second  .section  thereof,  which  provides,  among  other 
things,  that  ^  all  orders  and  instructions  relating  to  military  operations,  issued  by  the  President  or  Secretary  of 
War,  shall  be  issued  through  the  General  of  the  army,  and,  in  case  of  his  Inability,  through  the  next  in  rank," 
was  unconstitutional,  and  in  contravention  of  the  commission  of  said  Emory,  and  which  said  provision  of  law 
had  been  therefore  duly  and  legally  promulgated  by  General  Orders  for  the  government  and  direction  of  the 
army  of  the  United  States,  as  the  said  Andrew  Johnson  then  and  there  well  knew,  with  intent  thereby  to 
induce  said  Emory,  in  his  official  capacity  as  commander  of  the  department  of  Washington,  to  violate  the  pro- 
visions of  .said  act,  and  to  take  and  receive,  act  upon,  and  obey  such  orders  as  he,  the  said  Andrew  Johnson, 
might  make  and  give,  and  which  should  not  be  issued  through  the  General  of  the  army  of  the  United  States, 
according  to  the  provisions  of  said  act,  and  with  the  further  intent  thereby  to  enable  him,  the  said  Andrew 
Jolinson,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices," 
passed  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  and  to  unlawfully  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  then 
being  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  from  holding  said  office  and  discharging  the  duties  thereof,  whereby 
said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and  there  commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high 
misdemeanor  in  office. 

And  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  protestation,  saving  to  themselves  the  liberty  of  exhibiting  at  any 
tinif  hereafter  any  further  articles,  or  other  accusation  or  impeachment  against  the  said  Andrew  Johnson, 
Pre.-^ident  of  the  United  States,  and  also  of  replying  to  his  answers  which  he  shall  make  unto  the  articles  herein 
preferred  against  him,  and  of  ofi'ering  proof  to  the  same,  and  every  part  thereof,  and  to  all  and  every  other 
article,  accusation,  or  impeachment  which  shall  be  exhibited  by  them,  as  the  case  shall  require,  DO  nE.MANP 
that  the  said  Andrew  Johnson  may  be  put  to  answer  the  high  crimes  and  misdomeauors  in  office  herein 
charged  against  him,  and  that  such  proceedings,  examinations,  trials,  and  judgments  may  be  thereupon  had 
and  given  as  may  be  agreeable  to  law  aud  justice. 

Article  X. 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office,  and 
the  dignity  and  proprieties  thereof,  and  of  the  harmony  and  courtesies  which  ought  to  exist  ami  be  maintained 
between  the  executive  and  legislative  branches  of  the  "government  of  the  United  States,  designing  and  intend- 
ing to  get  aside  the  rightful  authority  and  powers  of  C<mgress,  did  attempt  to  bring  into  disgrace,  ridicule, 
hatred,  contempt,  and  ritproach  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  the  several  branches  thereof,  to  impair 
and  destroy  the  regard  and  resjiect  of  all  the  good  people  of  the  United  States  for  the  Congress  and  legislative 
jiiiwers  thereof,  (which  all  officers  of  the  government  ought  inviolably  to  preserve  and  maintain.)  and  to  excite 
the  odium  and  resentment  of  all  the  good  people  of  the  United  States  against  Congress  and  the  laws  by  it  duly 
aud  constitutionally  enacted  ;  and  in  imrsuance  of  his  said  design  aud  intent,  openly  and  publicly,  and  before 
divers  assemljlages  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  convened  in  divers  ))arts  thereof  to  mei't  and  receive 
said  Andrew  Jolmson  as  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  United  States,  did,  on  the  eighteenth  day  of  August,  in 
the  year  of  our  Ijord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-six,  and  on  divers  other  days  and  times,  as  well 
belore  as  afterward,  make  and  ileliver,  with  a  huid  voice,  certain  intemperate,  infiamnnitory,  and  scaudalouB 
harangues,  and  did  therein  utter  loud  threats  and  bitter  menaces,  as  widl  against  Congress  as  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  duly  enacted  thereby,  amid  the  cries,  jeers,  and  laughter  of  the  multitudes  then  assembled  and 
in  benritig,  which  are  set  forth  in  the  several  specifications  hereinafter  written,  in  substance  and  ofTect,  that 
is  to  say  : 

Spccijicntinn  first. — In  this,  that  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  the  Executive  Mansion, 
to  a  conmiitl(H)  of  citizens  who  called  npi>n  flu'  I'resident  of  the  United  Stales,  speaking  of  and  concerning  tlie 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  heretofore,  to  wit,  on 
the  eighteentii  day  of  August,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-six,  di*i,  in  a 
loud  voice,  declare,  in  substance  and  eflect.  among  oilier  things,  that  is  to  say  : 

"  So  far  as  the  executive  department  of  the  government  is  couci;rned,  the  effort  has  been  made  to  restore  the 


IN    THE    SENATE.  9 

Union,  to  heal  the  breach,  to  pour  oil  into  the  wonuds  which  were  consequent  upon  the  struggle,  and  (to 
Bpeak  in  cnuiinou  phrase)  to  prepare,  as  the  learned  and  wise  physician  would,  a  plaster  liraling  in  character 
and  co-exteusive  with  tlie  wound.  We  thought,  and  we  think,  that  wo  had  partially  succeeded  ;  but,  as  the 
work  progresses,  as  reconstnietion  seeuied  to  lie  taking  place,  and  the  country  was  becoming  reunited,  we 
found  a  disturbing  and  uiarriiiK  eh-nient  op|iosinjc  us.  lu  alluding  to  that  element  I  shall  go  no  furthiT  than 
your  convention,  and  the  distinguislu'd  gentleman  who  has  delivered  to  nie  the  report  of  its  proceedings.  I 
shall  make  no  reference  to  it  that  I  do  not  believe  the  time  and  occasion  justify. 

"We  have  witnessed  in  one  department  of  the  government  every  endeavor  to  prevent  the  restoration  of 
peace,  harmony  and  union.  We  have  seen  hanging  upon  the  verge  of  the  government,  as  it  were,  a  body 
called,  or  which  assumes  to  be,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  while,  iu  fact,  it  is  a  Congress  of  only  a  part 
of  the  States.  We  have  seen  this  Congress  pretend  to  be  for  the  Union,  when  its  every  step  and  act  tended 
to  perpetuate  disunion  and  make  a  disruption  of  the  .States  inevitable.         *        *         '"'  We  have  seen  Con- 

gress gradually  encroach,  s'ep  by  step,  upon  constitutional  rights,  and  violate,  day  after  day  and  month  after 
month,  fundamental  principles  of  the  government.  We  have  seen  a  Congress  that  seemed  to  forget  that  there 
was  a  limit  to  the  sphere  and  scope  of  legislation.  We  have  seen  a  Congress  iu  a  minority  assume  to  exercise 
power  which,  allowed  to  be  consummated,  would  result  in  despotism  or  monarchj'  itself." 

Specijicatioii  .■iecoiid. — In  this,  that  at  Cleveland,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  heretofore,  to  wit,  on  the  third 
day  of  September,  iu  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-six,  before  a  public  assem- 
blage of  citizens  and  others,  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  .States,  speaking  of  and  concerning 
\the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  did,  in  a  loud  voice,  declare,  in  substance  and  effect,  among  other  things, 
that  is  to  say  : 

"  I  will  tell  you  what  I  did  do.     I  called  upon  your  Congress  that  is  trying  to  break  up  the  goveruinent." 

"In  conclusion,  besides  that,  Congress  had  taken  much  pains  to  poison  their  constituents  against  him. 
But  what  had  Congress  done  ?  Have  they  done  anything  to  restore  the  union  of  these  .States?  No;  on  the 
contrary,  they  had  done  everything  to  prevent  it;  and  because  he  stood  now  where  he  did  when  the  rebellion 
commenced,  he  had  been  denounced  as  a  traitor.  Who  had  run  greater  risks  or  made  greater  sacritices  than 
himself?  But  Congress,  factious  and  domineering,  had  undertaken  to  poison  the  minds  of  the  American 
people." 

Specification  third. — In  this,  that  at  St.  Louis,  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  heretofore,  to  wit,  on  the  eighth 
day  of  .September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-six,  before  a  public  assem- 
blage of  citizens  and  others,  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  .States,  speaking  of  and  concerning 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  did,  in  a  loud  voice,  declare  in  substance  and  effect,  among  other  things, 
that  is  to  say  : 

"  Go  on.  Perhaps  If  you  had  a  word  -or  two  on  the  subject  of  New  Orleans  you  might  understand  more 
about  it  than  you  do.  And  if  you  will  go  back — if  you  will  go  back  and  ascertain  the  cause  of  the  riot  at 
New  Orleans,  perhaps  you  will  not  be  so  prompt  in  calling  out  '  New  Orleans.'  If  you  will  take  up  the  riot  at 
New  Orleans,  and  trace  it  back  to  its  source  or  its  immediate  cause,  you  will  find  out  who  is  responsible  for  the 
blood  that  was  shed  there.  If  you  will  take  up  the  riot  at  New  Orleans  and  trace  it  back  to  the  radical  Con- 
gress, you  will  tind  that  the  riot  at  New  Orleans  was  substantially  planned.  If  you  will  take  up  the  pro- 
ceedings in  their  eaucusses  you  will  tinderstand  that  thej-  there  knew  that  a  convention  was  to  be  called  which 
was  extinct  by  its  power  having  expired  ;  that  it  was  said  that  the  intention  was  that  a  new  government  was 
to  be  organized,  and  on  the  organization  of  that  government  the  intention  was  to  enfranchise  one  portion  of 
'  the  population,  called  the  colored  population,  who  had  just  been  emancipated,  and  at  the  same  time  dis- 
franchise white  men.  AVhen  you  design  to  talk  about  New  Orleans  you  ought  to  understand  what  you  are 
talking  about.  When  yon  read  the  speeches  that  were  made,  and  take  itp  the  facts  on  the  Friday  and  .Satur- 
day before  that  convention  sat,  you  will  there  find  that  speeches  were  made  incendiary  in  their  character, 
exciting  in  that  portion  of  the  population,  the  black  population,  to  arm  themselves  and  prepare  for  the  shed- 
ding of  blood.  You  will  also  find  that  that  convention  did  assemble  in  violation  of  law,  and  the  intention  of 
that  convention  wag  to  supersede  the  reorganized  authorities  in  the  .State  government  of  Louisiana,  which  had 
been  recognized  by  the  government  of  the  United  .States;  and  every  man  engaged  in  that  rebellion  iu  that 
convention,  with  the  intention  of  superseding  and  upturning  the  civil  government  which  had  been  recognized 
by  the  government  of  the  United  .States,  I  say  that  he  was  a  traitor  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  hence  you  find  that  another  rebellion  was  commenced,  having  its  origin  in  the  radical  Congress. 

"  So  much  for  the  New  Orleans  riot.  And  there  was  the  cause  and  the  origin  of  the  blood  that  was  shed, 
and  every  drop  of  blood  that  was  shed  is  upon  their  skirts,  and  they  are  responsible  for  it.  I  cottld  test  this 
thing  a  little  closer,  but  will  not  do  it  here  to-night.  But  when  you  talk  about  the  ci^uses  and  consequences 
that  resulted  froin  proceedings  of  that  kind,  perhaps,  as  I  have  been  introduced  here,  and  you  have  provoked 
questions  of  this  kind,  though  it  does  not  provoke  me,  I  will  tell  you  a  few  wholesome  things  that  have  been 
done  by  this  radical  Congress  in  connection  with  New  Orleans  and  the  extension  of  the  elective  franchise. 

"  I  know  that  I  have  been  traduced  and  abused.  I  know  it  has  come  in  advance  of  me  here  as  elsewhere, 
that  I  have  attempted  to  exercise  an  arbitrary  power  in  resisting  laws  that  were  intended  to  be  forced  upon 
the  government ;  that  I  had  exercised  that  power;  that  I  had  abandoned  the  party  that  elected  me,  and  that 
I  was  a  traitor,  because  I  exercised  the  veto  power  in  attempting,  and  did  arrest  for  a  time,  a  bill  that  was 
crlled  a  '  Freedman's  Bureau'  bill ;  yes,  that  I  was  a  traitor.  And  Ihave  been  traduced,  I  have  been  slandered, 
I  have  been  maligned,  I  have  been  called  Judas  Iscariot,  and  all  that.  Now,  my  countrymen,  here  to-night,  it 
is  very  easy  to  indulge  in  epithets ;  it  is  easy  to  call  a  man  Judas  and  cry  out  traitor ;  but  when  he  is  called 
upon  to  give  arguments  and  facts  he  is  very  often  found  wanting.  Judas  Iscariot — Judas.  There  was  a 
Judas,  and  he  was  one  of  the  twelve  apostles.  Oh  !  yes,  the  twelve  apostles  had  a  Christ.  The  twelve  apos- 
tles had  a  Christ,  and  he  never  could  have  had  a  Judas  unless  he  had  had  twelve  apostles.  If  I  have  played 
the  Judas,  who  has  been  my  Christ  that  I  have  played  the  .Tudas  with  1  Was  it  Thad.  Stevens  1  Was  it 
Wendell  Phillips?  Was  it  Charles  Sumner?  These  are  the  men  that  stop  and  compare  themselves  with  the 
Saviour ;  and  everybody  that  differs  with  them  in  opinion,  and  to  try  to  stay  and  arrest  their  diabolical  and 
nefarious  policy,  is  to  be  denounced  as  a  Judas."  ******** 

"Well,  let  me  say  to  you,  if  you  will  stand  by  me  in  this  action,  if  you  will  stand  by  me  in  trying  to  give 
the  people  a  fair  chance — soldiers  and  citizens — to  participate  in  these  offices,  God  being  willing,  I  will  kick 
them  out.    I  will  kick  them  out  just  as  fast  as  I  can. 

"Let  me  say  to  you,  in  concluding,  that  what  I  have  said  I  intended  to  saj'.  I  was  not  provoked  into  this, 
and  I  care  not  for  their  menaces,  the  taunts,  and  the  jeers.  I  care  not  for  tliroats.  1  do  not  intend  to  be 
bullied  by  my  enemies  nor  overawed  by  my  friends.  But,  God  willing,  with  your  help,  I  will  veto  their 
measures  when  any  of  them  come  to  me." 

Which  said  utterances,  declarations,  threats,  and  harangues,  highly  censurable  in  any,  are  peculiarly  inde- 
cent and  unbecoming  in  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  United  States,  by  means  whereof  said  Andrew  Johnson 
has  brought  the  high  office  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  into  contempt,  ridicule,  and  disgrace,  to  the 
great  scandal  of  all  good  citizens,  whereby  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  commit, 
and  was  then  and  there  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 


10  PEELIMINARY   PROCEEDINGS,    ETC. 

Article  XI. 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  Stiites,  unmindful  of  the  lii>,'li  duties  of  his  ofHce,  and  of 
bis  oath  of  office,  and  in  disregard  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  did,  heretofore,  to  wit, 
on  the  eighteenth  day  of  August,  A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-six.  at  the  eitv  of  Washington,  and  the 
District  of  Columbia,  by  public  speech,  declare  and  affirm,  in  substance,  that  the  tliirty-nintli  Congress  of  the 
United  .States  was  not  a  Congress  of  the  United  States  authorized  by  the  Constilntion  to  exercise  legislative 
l)Ower  under  the  same,  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  a  Congress  of  only  part  of  the  States,  thereby  denying,  and 
intending  to  deny,  that  the  legislation  of  said  Congress  was  valid  or  obligatory  upon  him,  the"  said  Andrew 
Johnson,  except  in  so  far  as  he  saw  fit  to  approve  the  same  and  also  thereby  denying,  and  intending  to  deny, 
the  power  of  the  said  thirty-ninth  Congress  to  propose  amendments  to  the  (Jousti'tution  of  the  United  States; 
and,  in  pursuance  of  said  declaration,  the  said  Andrew  Johnson.  President  of  the  United  States,  afterwards, 
to  wit,  on  the  twentyfirst  day  of  February,  A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  at  the  citv  of  Washington,  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  did.  unlawfully,  and  in  disregard  of  the  requirements  of  the  Constitution,  that  he 
should  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  attempt  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  en- 
titled "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certjiin  civil  offices,"  passed  March  second,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-seven,  by  unlawfully  devising  aud  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive  means  by 
•which  he  should  prevent  Edwin  Jl.  Stanton  from  forthwith  resuming  the  functions  of  the  office  of  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War,  notwitbstnndiug  the  refusal  of  the  Senate  to  concur  in  the  suspension  theretofore 
made  by  said  Andrew  Johuson  of  said  Edwin  JI.  Stanton  from  saiil  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of 
War;  and.  also,  by  further  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  aud  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive  mean.s, 
then  and  there,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of 
the  army  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  and  for  otiier  purposes," 
approved  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  aiid  sixty-seven ;  and,  also,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act 
entitled  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,"  passed  March  second, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  whereby  the  said  Andrew  John.son,  Presidimt  of  the  United  States,  did, 
then,  to  wit,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  February,  A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  at  the  city  of 
■Washington,  commit,  and  was  guilty  of,  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

SCHUYLER  COLFAX, 

Attest :  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Reprcscntativas. 

Edward  McPherson, 

Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  President  •pro  tempore.  The  Senate  will  take  due  order  upou  the  .subject  of  impeach- 
ment, of  which  proper  notice  will  be  given  to  the  Hou.se  of  Eepre.seutatives. 

The  managens  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  accompanied  by  the  Speaker  and  a  large 
number  of  members  of  the  House  who  had  been  present  during  the  presentation  of  the  articles 
of  impeachment,  withdrew  from  the  Senate  chamber. 

Mr.  Howard  submitted  the  following  resolution  and  orders,  which  were  read,  consid- 
ered, and  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  at  one  o'clock  to-morrow  afternoon  the  Senate  will  proceed  to  consider  the  impeachment  of 
Andrew  Johuson,  President  of  the  United  States,  at  which  time  the  oath  or  affirmation  required  by  the  rules 
of  the  Senate  sitting  for  the  trial  of  an  impeachment  shall  be  administered  by  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United 
States  as  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  sitting  as  aforesaid,  to  each  nieniber  of  the  Senate,  and  that  the 
Senate  sitting  as  aforesaid  will  at  the  time  aforesaid  receive  the  managers  appointed  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 

Ordered,  That  the  Secretary  lay  this  resolution  before  the  House  of  Representatives.^ 

Ordered,  That  the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  against  Andrew  Johuson,  President  of  the  United 
States,  be  printed.     • 

Ordered,  That  a  copy  of  the  "rules  of  procedure  and  practice  in  the  Senate  when  sitting  on  the  trial  of 
impeachments"  be  communicated  by  the  Secretary  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  aud  a  copy  thereof  deliv- 
ered by  him  to  each  member  of  the  House. 

Mr.  PoMEROY  submitted  the  following  order,  which  was  read  aud  considered: 
Ordered.   That  the  notice  to  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  to  meet  the  Senate  in  the  trial  of  the  case 
of  impeachment,  and  requesting  his  attendance  as  presiding  officer,  be  delivered  to  him  by  a  committee  of 
three  senators  to  be  appointed  by  the  Chair,  who  shall  wait  upou  tho  Chief  Justice  to  the  Senate  chamber 
aud  conduct  him  to  the  chair. 

The  order  was  agreed  to ;  aud  the  President  pro  tempore  appointed  Messrs.  Pomeroy, 
Wilson,  and  Bucktilew  the  committee. 


Tuesday,  March  10. 

The  Senate  considered  the  order  offered  by  the  senator  from  Rhode  Island,  [Mr. 
Anthony,]  in  relation  to  admissions  to  the  Senate  gallery  during  the  trial  of  tho  impeach- 
ment of  Andrew  .John.son,  as  it  was  reported  by  Mr.  Howard,  chairman  of  the  select  com- 
mittee to  which  it  had  been  referred.  Aft(;r  discussion  and  amendment,  the  order  was 
adopted,  as  follows : 

Ordered,  That  during  the  trial  of  tho  impeachment  now  pending  no  persons  besides  those  who  have  the 
privilege  of  the  floor  and  clerks  of  the  standing  committees  of  the  Senate  shall  be  admitted  to  that  portion  of 
tho  Capitol  set  apart  for  the  use  of  tho  Situate  and  its  officers,  except  upon  tickets  issued  by  the  sergeaut-at- 
arms.  The  number  of  tickets  shall  not  exceed  one  thousand.  Tickets  shall  be  numbered  liud  dated,  and  be 
good  only  for  the  day  on  which  they  are  dated. 

Second.  The  portion  of  the  gallery  set  apart  for  the  diplomatic  corph  shall  be  exclusively  appropriated  to 
it,  and  forty  tickets  of  admission  thereto  shall  be  issued  to  the  Baron  Oerolt  for  the  foreign  legations. 

Third.  Four  tickets  shall  be  issued  to  each  senator;  four  tickets  each  to  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives;  two  tickets  to  each  member  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives; two  tickets  each  to  the  associate  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  tho  llnited  States;  two 
tickets  each  to  the  chief  justice  and  associate  justices  of  the  suiuvme  court  of  the  District  of  Cohtmbia  ;  two 
tickets  to  the  chief  justice  and  each  judge  of  the  Court  of  Claims;  two  tickets  to  each  Cabinet  officer; 
two  tickets  to  the  General  commanding  the  army ;  twenty  tickets  to  the  private  .secretary  of  the  President  of 
the  United  .States  for  the  use  of  the  President;  aud  sixty  tickets  shall  be  issued  by  the  President  pro  tempore 
of  the  Senate  to  the  rejiorters  of  the  press.  The  residue  of  the  tickets  to  be  issui'd  shall  be  distributed 
among  the  members  of  tho  Senate  in  proportion  to  the  representation  of  their  respective  States  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  and  tho  seats  now  occupied  by  the  suuatora  shall  be  reserved  for  them. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON, 

PRESIDENT    OF     THE    UNITED    STATES, 

FOR  HIGH  CRIMES  AND  MISDEMEANORS. 


The  United  States  vs.  Andrew  Johnson,  President. 


The  Capitol,  Thursday,  Marcli  5,  186S. 

At  1  o'clock  p.  m.  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  Stcates  entered  the  Senate 
chamber,  accompanied  by  Mr.  Justice  Nelson,  and  escorted  by  Senators  Pome- 
roy,  Wilson,  and  Buckalew,  the  committee  appointed  for  that  purpose. 

The  Chief  Justice  took  the  chair  and  said  :  Senators,  I  attend  the  Senate  in 
obedience  to  your  notice,  for  the  purpose  of  joining  with  you  in  Ibrming  a  court 
of  impeachment  for  the  trial  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  I  am 
now  ready  to  take  the  oath. 

The  oath  was  administered  by  Mr,  Justice  Nelson,  the  Senior  Associate  Jus- 
tice of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  to  Chief  Justice  Chase  in  the 
following  words  : 

I  do  solemnly  swear  that  in  all  things  appertaining  to  the  trial  of  tlie  impeachment  of 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  I  will  do  impartial  justice  according  to  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws :  so  help  me  God. 

[The  senators  rose  when  the  Chief  Justice  entered  the  chamber,  and  remained 
standing  till  the  conclusion  of  the  administration  of  the  oath  to  him.] 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  the  oath  will  now  be  administered  to  the  sen- 
ators as  they  will  be  called  by  the  Secretary  in  succession.  (To  the  Secretary.) 
Call  the  roll. 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  call  the  roU'alphabetically,  and  the  Chief  Justice 
administered  the  oath  to  Senators  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Cat- 
tell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragiu,  Davis,  Dixon,  Drake, 
Ferry,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Henderson,  Hend- 
ricks, Howard,  Howe,  Johnson,  McCreery,  JMorgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill 
of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey, 
Ross,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Trumbull  and  Van 
Winkle. 

The  Secretary  then  called  the  name  of  Mr.  Wade,  who  rose  from  his  seat  in  the 
Senate  and  advanced  toward  the  chair.  His  right  to  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court 
was  questioned  by  Senator  Hendricks  and  discussed,  and  a  motion  to  adjourn 
Avas  made  and  carried.     A  report  of  the  debate  will  be  found  in  the  third  volume. 

The  Chief  Justice  thereupon  declared  the  court  adjourned  until  1  o'clock 
to-morrow,  and  vacated  the  chair. 


Friday,  March  6,  1868. 

At  1  o'clock  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate 
chamber,  escorted  by  Mr.  Pomeroy,  the  chairman  of  the  committee  appointed 
for  that  purpose,  and  took  the  ch'air. 


12  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  CuiRF  Justice.  The  Senate  will  come  to  order.  The  proceedings  of 
yesterday  will  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  "  proceedings  of  the  Senate  sitting  on  the  trial  of  the 
impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson.  President  of  the  United  States,  on  Thursday, 
March  5,  1S68,"  from  the  entries  on  the  journal  kept  for  that  purpose  by  the 
Secretary. 

The  Chirf  Justice.  At  its  adjournment  last  evening,  the  Senate,  sitting  for 
the  trial  of  impeachment,  had  under  consideration  the  motion  of  the  senator  from 
Maryland,  [Mr.  Johnson,]  that  objection  having  been  made  to  the  senator  from 
Ohio  [Mr.  Wade]  taking  the  oath,  his  name  should  be  passed  until  the  remaining 
meml)crs  have  been  sworn.     That  is  tlie  business  now  before  the  body. 

After  discussion.  Senator  Hendricks  withdrew  his  objection,  and  the  Chief 
Justice  announced  that  the  motion  made  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Mary- 
land fell  with  it. 

The  Secretary  called  the  name  of  Mr.  "Wade,  who  advanced  and  took  the 
oath. 

The  Secretary  then  continued  the  call  of  the  roll,  and  the  Chief  Justice 
administered  the  oath  to  Senators  Willey,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates,  as  their 
names  wei-e  respectively  called. 

The  Secretaiy  then  called  the  names  of  Senators  Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Patter- 
son of  New  Hampshire,  and  Saulsbury,  who  were  not  present  yesterday ;  and 
Mr.  Saulsbury  ajjpeared,  and  the  oath  was  administered  to  him  by  the  Chief 
Justice. 

The  Chief  Justice.  All  the  senators  present  having  taken  the  oath  required 
by  the  Constitution,  the  Senate  is  now  organized  for  the  purpose  of  proceeding 
to  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United 
States.     The  Sergeant-at-arras  will  make  proclamation. 

The  Sergea\t-at-arms.  Hear  ye!  Hear  ye !  Hear  ye !  All  persons  are 
commanded  to  keep  silence  on  pain  of  imprisonment  while  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  is  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  against 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  move  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  notify  the  managers 
on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate  is  now  organized 
for  the  purpose  of  proceeding  to  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  of  Andrew 
Johnson. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Before  putting  that  question  the  Chair  feels  it  his  duty 
to  submit  a  question  to  the  Senate  relative  to  the  rules  of  proceeding.  In  the 
judgment  of  the  Chief  Justice  the  Senate  is  now  organized  as  a  distinct  body 
from  the  Senate  sitting  in  its  legislative  capacity.  It  performs  a  distinct  func- 
tion ;  the  members  are  under  a  different  oath  ;  and  the  presiding  officer  is  not 
the  President  i^ro  tempore  of  the  Senate,  but  the  Chief  Justice  of  tlie  United. 
States.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  Chair  conceives  that  rules  adopted  by 
the  Senate  in  its  legislative  capacity  are  not  rules  for  the  government  of  the 
Senate  sitting  for  the  trial  of  an  imp(^achment,  unless  they  be  also  adopted  by 
that  body.  In  this  judgment  of  the  Chair,  if  it  be  an  erroneous  one,  he  desires 
to  be  corrected  by  the  judgment  of  the  court,  or  of  the  Senate  sitting  for  the 
trial  of  the  impeachment  of  the  President,  which  in  his  judgment  are  synony- 
mous terms,  and  therefore,  if  he  may  be  permitted  to  do  so,  he  will  take  the 
sense  of  the  Senate  upon  this  question,  whether  the  rules  adopted  on  the  2d  of 
March,  a  copy  of  which  is  now  laying  before  him,  shall  be  considered  the  rules 
of  proceeding  in  this  body.  ("  Question.")  Senators,  you  who  think  that  the 
rules  of  proceeding  adopted  on  the  2d  of  IMarch  should  be  considered  as  the 
rules  of  proceeding  of  this  body  will  say  "  ay  ;"  contrary  opinion,  "no."  [The 
senators  having  answered  ]  The  ayes  have  it  by  the  sound.  The  rules  will 
be  considered  as  the  rules  of  proceeding  in  this  body. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  13 

Rules  of  procedure  and  practice  in  the  Senate  tc/ten  sitting  on  the  trial  of  impeachments. 

I.  Whensoever  the  Senate  shall  receive  notice  from  the  House  of  Representatives  that  man- 
agers are  appointed  ou  their  part  to  conduct  an  impeacbiucnt  against  any  persiin,  and  are 
directed  to  carry  articles  of  impeachment  to  the  Senate,  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  shall 
immediately  inform  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate  is  ready  to  receive  the 
managers  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  such  articlesof  impeachment  agreeably  to  said  notice. 

II.  When  the  managers  of  an  impeachment  shall  be  introduced  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate, 
and  shall  signify  that  they  are  ready  to  exhibit  articles  of  impeachment  against  any  person, 
the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  shall  direct  the  Sergeant-at-arms  to  make  proclamation,  who 
shall,  after  making  proclamation,  repeat  the  following  words,  viz:  "All  persons  are  com- 
manded to  keep  silence,  ou  paiu  of  imprisonment,  while   the   House   of  Representatives    is 

exhibiting  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  articles  of  impeachmentagainst ;" 

after  which  the  articles  shall  be  exhibited,  and  then  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  shall 
inform  the  managers  that  the  Senate  will  take  proper  order  on  the  subject  of  the  impeach- 
ment, of  which  due  notice  shall  be  given  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

III.  Upon  such  articles  being  presented  to  the  Senate,  the  Senate  shall,  at  1  o'clock  after- 
noon of  tlie  day  (Sunday  excepted)  following  such  presentation,  or  sooner  if  so  ordered  by 
the  Senate,  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  such  articles,  and  shall  continue  in  session  from 
day  to  day,  (Sundays  excepted )  after  the  trial  shall  commence,  (unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the 
Senate,)  until  final  judgment  shall  be  rendered,  and  so  much  longer  as  may,  in  its  judgment, 
be  needful.  Before  proceeding  to  the  consideration  of  the  articles  of  impeachment,  the  pre- 
siding officer  shall  administer  the  oath  hereinafter  provided  to  the  members  of  the  Senate  then 
present,  and  to  the  other  members  of  the  Senate  as  they  shall  appear,  whose  duty  it  shall  be 
to  take  the  same. 

IV.  When  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  the  Vice  President  of  the  United  States, 
upon  wliom  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  office  of  President  shall  have  devolved,  shall  be 
impeached,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  shall  preside  ;  and 
in  a  case  requiring  the  said  Chief  Justice  to  preside,  notice  shall  be  given  to  him  by  the  pre- 
siding officer  of  the  Senate  of  the  time  and  place  fixed  for  the  consideration  of  the  articles 
of  impeachment,  as  aforesaid,  with  a  request  to  attend  ;  and  the  said  Chief  Justice  shall 
preside  over  the  Senate  during  the  cousideratiou  of  said  articles,  and  upon  the  trial  of  the 
person  impeached  therein. 

V.  The  presiding  officer  shall  have  power  to  make  and  issue,  by  himself  or  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Senate,  all  orders,  mandates,  writs,  and  precepts  authorized  by  these  rules,  or  by 
the  Senate,  and  to  make  and  enforce  such  other  regulations  and  orders  in  the  premises  as  the 
Senate  may  authorize  or  provide. 

VI.  The  Senate  shall  have  power  to  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses,  to  enforce  obedi- 
ence to  its  orders,  mandates,  writs,  precepts,  and  judgments,  to  preserve  order,  and  to  pun- 
ish in  a  summary  way  contempts  of  and  disobedience  to  its  authority,  orders,  mandates, 
writs,  precepts,  or  judgments,  and  to  make  all  lawful  orders,  rules  and  regulations,  which 
it  may  deem  essential  or  conducive  to  the  ends  of  justice.  Aud  the  Sergeant-at-arms,  under 
the  direction  the  Senate,  may  employ  such  aid  aud  assistance  as  may  be  necessary  to  enforce, 
execute,  aud  carry  into  eftect  the  lawful  orders,  mandates,  writs,  aud  precepts  of  the  Senate. 

VII.  The  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  shall  direct  all  necessary  preparations  iu  the  Seu- 
at«  chamber,  aud  the  presiding  officer  upon  the  trial  shall  direct  all  the  forms  of  proceeding 
while  the  Senate  are  sitting  for  the  purpose  of  trying  an  impeachment,  and  all  forms  during 
the  trial  not  otherwise  specially  provided  for.  The  presiding  officer  nuiy,  in  the  first  instance, 
submit  to  the  Senate,  without  a  division,  all  questions  of  evidence  and  incidental  questions  ; 
but  the  same  shall,  ou  the  demand  of  one-fifth  of  the  members  present,  be  decided  by  yeas 
and  nays.     [This  rule  was  amended  on  the  31st  of  March.] 

VIII.  Upon  the  presentation  of  articles  of  impeachment  and  the  organization  of  the  Sen- 
ate as  hereinbefore  provided,  a  writ  of  summons  shall  issue  to  the  accused,  reciting  said 
articles  and  notifying  him  to  appear  before  the  Senate  upon  a  day  and  at  a  place  to  be  fixed 
by  the  Senate  aud  named  in  such  writ,  and  file  his  answer  to  said  articles  ot  inqjeachment, 
and  to  stand  to  and  abide  the  orders  and  judgments  of  the  Senate  thereon;  which  writs  shall 
be  served  by  such  officer  or  person  as  shall  be  named  iu  the  precept  thereof  such  uumber  of 
days  prior  to  the  day  fixed  for  such  appearance  as  shall  be  named  in  such  precept,  either  by 
the  delivery  of  an  attested  copy  thereof  to  the  person  accused,  or,  if  that  cauuot  couveu- 
iently  be  done,  by  leaving  such  copy  at  the  last  known  place  of  abode  of  such  persou  or  at 
his  usual  place  of  business,  in  some  conspicuous  place  therein  ;  or  if  such  service  shall  be, 
iu  the  judgment  of  the  Senate,  impracticable,  notice  to  the  accused  to  appear  shall  be  given 
in  such  other  maimer,  by  publication  or  otherwise,  as  shall  be  deemed  just ;  aud  if  the  writ 
aforesaid  shall  fail  of  service  in  the  manner  aforesaid  the  proceedings  shall  not  thereby  abate, 
but  further  service  may  be  made  in  such  manner  as  the  Senate  shall  direct.  If  the  accused, 
after  service,  shall  fail  to  appear,  either  in  persou  or  by  attorney,  ou  the  day  so  fixed  there- 


14  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

foi"  as  aforesaid,  or,  appearing,  shall  fail  to  file  his  answer  to  such  articles  of  impeachment, 
the  trial  shall  proceed,  neveitheless,  as  upon  a  plea  of  not  guilty.  If  a  plea  of  guilty  shall 
be  entered  judgment  niaj'  be  entered  thereon  without  further  proceedings. 

IX.  At  twelve  o'clock  and  thirty  minutes  afternoon  of  the  day  appointed  for  the  return  of 
the  summons  against  the  person  impeached,  the  legislative  and  executive  lousiness  of  the 
Senate  shall  be  suspended,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  shall  administiT  an,  (lath  to  the 

returning  ot^cer  in  the  form  following,  viz:   "  I, ,  do  solemnly  swear  that  the 

return  made  by  me  upon  the  process  issued  on  the day  of ,  by  the  Senate  of  the 

United  States,  against ,  is  truly  made,  and  that  I  have  performed  such  service 

as  therein  described  :  so  help  me  God."     Which  oath  shall  be  entered  at  large  on  the  records. 

X.  'The  person  impeached  shall  then  be  called  to  appear  and  answerthe  articles  of  impeach- 
ment against  him.  If  he  appear,  or  any  person  for  him,  the  appearance  shall  be  recorded, 
stating  particularly  if  by  himself,  or  by  agent  or  attorney,  naming  the  person  appearing,  and 
the  capacity  in  Avhich  lie  ajjpears.  If  he  do  not  appear,  either  personally  or  by  agent  or 
attorney,  the  same  shall  be  recorded. 

XI.  At  twelve  o'clock  and  thirty  minutes  afternoon  of  the  day  appointed  for  the  trial  of  an 
impeachment,  the  legislative  and  executive  business  of  the  Senate  shall  be  suspended,  and 
the  Secretary  shall  give  notice  to  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate  is  ready  to 

proceed  upon  the  impeachment  of ,  in  the  Senate  chamber,  wiiich  chamber  is 

prepared  with  accommodations  for  the  reception  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

XII.  The  hour  of  the  day  at  Avhich  the  Senate  shall  sit  npon  the  trial  of  an  impeachment 
shall  be  (unless  otherwise  ordered)  twelve  o'clock  m.  ;  and  when  the  hour  for  such  sitting 
shall  arrive,  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  shall  so  announce ;  and  thereupon  the  pre- 
siding officer  upon  such  trial  shall  cause  proclamation  to  be  made,  and  the  business  of  the 
ti'ial  shall  proceed.  The  adjournment  of  the  Senate  sitting  in  said  trial  shall  not  operate  as 
an  adjournment  of  the  Senate ;  but  on  such  adjournment  the  Senate  shall  resume  the  consid- 
eration of  its  legislative  and  executive  business. 

XIII.  The  Secretary  of  the  Senate  shall  record  the  proceedings  in  cases  of  impeachment  as 
in  the  case  of  legislative  proceedings,  and  the  same  shall  be  reported  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  legislative  proceedings  of  the  Senate. 

XIV.  Counsel  for  the  parties  shall  be  admitted  to  appear  and  be  heard  upon  an  impeach- 
ment. 

XV.  All  motions  made  by  the  parties  or  their  counsel  shall  be  addressed  to  the  presiding 
officer,  and  if  he,  or  any  senator,  shall  require  it,  they  shall  be  committed  to  writing,  and  read 
at  the  Secretary's  table. 

XVI.  Witnesses  shall  be  examined  by  one  person  on  behalf  of  the  party  producing  them, 
and  then  cross-examined  by  one  person  on  the  other  side. 

XVII.  If  a  senator  is  called  as  a  witness  he  shall  be  sworn  and  give  his  testimony  standing 
in  his  place. 

XVIII.  If  a  senator  wishes  a  question  to  be  put  to  a  witness,  or  to  offer  a  motion  or  order, 
(except  a  motion  to  adjourn,)  it  shall  be  reduced  to  writing,  and  put  by  the  presiding  officer. 

XIX.  At  all  times  Avhile  the  Senate  is  sitting  upon  the  trial  of  an  impeachment  the  doors 
of  the  Senate  shall  be  kept  open,  unless  the  Senate  shall  direct  the  doors  to  be  closed  while 
deliberating  upon  its  decisions. 

XX.  All  preliminary  or  interlocutory  questions,  and  all  motions,  shall  be  argued  for  not 
exceeding  one  hour  on  each  side,  unless  the  Senate  shall,  b3'  order,  extend  the  time. 

XXI.  The  case,  on  each  side,  shall  be  opened  by  one  person.  The  final  argument  on  the 
merits  may  be  made  by  two  i)ersons  on  each  side,  (unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Senate, 
upoTi  ajiplication  for  that  purpose,)  and  the  argument  shall  be  opened  and  closed  on  the  part 
of  tlie  Mouse  of  Representatives. 

XXII.  On  the  final  question  whether  the  inq)eaclunent  is  sustained,  the  yeas  and  nays 
shall  be  taken  on  each  article  of  impeachment  separately ;  and  il  the  impeaeliment  shall  not, 
upon  any  of  tiie  articles  presented,  be  sustained  by  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  liie  uiembers 
present,  a  judgment  of  accjuittal  shall  be  entered;  but  if  the  person  accused  in  such  articles 
of  impeachment  shall  be  convicted  upon  any  of  said  articles  by  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  tiie 
members  present,  the  Senate  shall  proceed  to  pronounce  judgment,  and  a  certified  copy  of 
such  judgment  sluiU  be  deposited  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

XXIII.  All  the  orders  and  decisions  shall  be  made  and  had  by  j'eas  and  nays,  which  shall 
be  entered  on  the  record,  and  without  debate,  except  when  the  doors  shall  be  closed  for 
deliberation,  and  in  that  case  no  nuunber  shall  speak  niore  than  once  on  one  ([uestion,  and 
for  not  more  than  ten  minutes  on  an  interlocutory  (piestion,  and  for  not  more  than  fifteen 
minutes  on  the  final  (|uestion,  unless  by  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  bo  had  without  debate ; 
but  a  motion  to  adjourn  may  be  decided  witiioutthe  yeas  and  nays,  unless  they  be  demanded 
by  one-fifth  of  the  members  present. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  15 

XXIY.  Witnesses  shall  be  sworn  ill  the  following  torni,  namely :   "Yon, 


do  swear  (or  aflinri,  as  the  ease  may  be)  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  ease  now 

depending-  between  the  United  States  and shall  l)e  the  truth,  the  wliole  truth, 

and  uotbiug  but  the  truth :  so  help  you  God."  Which  oath  shall  be  administered  by  the 
Secretary  or  any  other  duly  authorized  person. 

Form  of  subpo?ua  to  be  issued  on  the  application  of  the  managers  of  the  impeachmeut,  or 
of  the  party  impeached,  or  of  his  counsel : 
2o greeting : 

You  and  each  of  you  are  hereby  commanded  to  appear  before  the  Senate  of  the  United 

States,  on  the day  of ,  at  the  Senate  chamber,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  then 

and  there  to  testify  your  knowledge  in  the  cause  which  is  before  the  Senate,  in  which  the 
House  of  Kepreseutatives  have  impeached . 

P^ail  not. 

Witness ,  and  presiding  oflicer  of  the  Senate,   at  the  city  of  Washington, 

this day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the 

United  States  the . 

Form  of  direction  for  the  service  of  said  subpoena  : 
The  Senate  of  the  United  States  to ,  greeting : 

You  are  hereby  commanded  to  serve  and  return  the  within  subpoena  according  to  law. 

Dated  at  Washington,  this day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord ,  and  of 

the  independence  of  the  United  States  the . 

Secretary  of  the  Senate. 

Form  of  oath  to  be  administered  to  the  members  of  the  Senate  sitting  in  the  trial  of  impeach- 
ments : 

I  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm,  as  the  case  may  be,)  that  in  all  things  appertaining  to  the 

trial  of  the  impeachmeut  of ,  now  pending,  I  will  do  impartial  justice  according 

to  the  Constitution  and  laws :  so  help  me  God. 

Form  of  summons  to  be  issued  and  served  upon  the  person  impeached : 
The  United  States  of  America,  ss  : 
The  Senate  of  the  United  States  to ,  greeting: 

Wliereas  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  did,  on  the 

day  of ,  exhibit  to  the  Senate  articles  of  impeachment  against  you,  the  said 

,  in  the  words  foUow'ug: 

I  Here  insert  the  articles.  ] 

And  demand  that  you,  the  said ,  should  be  put  to  answer  the  accusations 

as  set  forth  in  said  articles,  and  that  such  proceedings,  examinations,  trials,  and  judgments 
might  be  thereupon  had  as  are  agreeable  to  law  and  justice  : 

You,  the  said ,  are  therefore  hereby  summoned  to  be  and  appear  before  the 

Senate  of  the  United  States  of  America,  at  their  chamber,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  on  the 

day  of .  at  twelve  o'clock  and  thirty  minutes  afternoon,  then  and  there  to 

answer  to  tlie  said  articles  of  impeachment,  and  then  and  there  to  abide  by,  obey,  and  per- 
form such  orders,  directions,  and  judgments  as  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  make  in 
the  premises  according  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States. 

Hereof  you  are  not  to  fail. 

Witness ,  and  presiding  officer  of  the  said  Senate,  at  the  city  of  Washington, 

this day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the 

United  States  the . 

Form  of  precept  to  be  indorsed  on  said  writ  of  summons : 
The  United  States  of  America,  ss  : 
The  Senate  of  the  United  States  to ,  greeting: 

You  are  hereby  commanded  to  deliver  to  and  leave  with ,  if  conveniently  to 

be  found,  or.  if  not,  to  leave  at  his  usual  place  of  abode,  or  at  his  usual  place  of  business,  in 
some  conspicuous  place,  a  true  and  attested  copy  of  the  within  writ  of  sunnnous,  together 
with  a  like  copy  of  this  precept;  and  in  whichsoever  way  you  perform  the  service  let  it  be 
done  at  least days  before  the  appearance  day  mentioned  in  said  writ  of  summons. 

Fail  not,  and  make  return  of  this  writ  of  summons  and  precept,  with  your  proceedings 
thereon  indorsed,  on  or  before  the  appearance  day  mentioned  in  the  said  writ  of  summons. 

Witness ,  and  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this 

day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States 

the . 

All  process  shall  be  served  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms  of  the  Senate,  unless  otherwise  ordered 
by  the  court. 

XXV.  If  the  Senate  shall  at  any  time  fail  to  sit  for  the  consideration  of  articles  of  impeach- 
ment on  the  day  or  hour  tixed  therefor,  the  Senate  may,  by  an  order  to  be  adopted  without 
debate,  tix  a  day  and  hour  for  resuming  such  consideration. 


16  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Michigan  moves — will  the  senator 
have  the  goodness  to  repeat  his  motion  1 

Mr,  Howard.  My  motion  is  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  notify  the 
managers  of  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate  is  now  organized  for 
tlie  purpose  of  trying  the  impeachment  against  Andrew  Johnson,  and  is  ready 
to  receive  them.     The  clerk  will  be  good  enough  to  put  it  in  form. 

The  Seci-etary  read  the  order,  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  notify  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the 
Senate  is  now  orpmized  for  the  trial  of  the  articles  ofimpeachineut  against  Andrew  Johnson, 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  is  ready  to  receive  the  managers  of  the  impeachment  at 
its  bar. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

After  a  pause,  and  at  13  minutes  before  3  o'clock,  the  managers  of  the  impeach- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  (with  the  exception  of  Mr. 
Stevens)  appeared  at  the  bar,  and  their  presence  was  announced  by  the  Sergeant- 
at-arms. 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  will  please  take  the  seats  assigned  to  them. 

The  managers  having  been  seated  in  the  area  in  front  of  the  Chair, 

Mr.  IVIanager  Bingham  rose  and  said  :  Mr.  President,  we  are  instructed  by 
the  House  of  Representatives,  as  its  managers,  to  demand  that  the  Senate  take 
process  against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  that  he  may 
answer  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate  ujjon  the  articles  of  impeachment  heretofore 
preferred  by  the  House  of  Representatives  through  its  managers  before  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  move  for  an  order  that  a  summons  do  issue  to  Andrew  John- 
son, President  of  the  United  States,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  which  we  have 
adopted — I  refer  particularly  to  the  eighth  rule — returnable  on  Friday,  the  13th 
day  of  March  instant,  at  1  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  a  summons  do  issue,  as  required  by  the  rules  of  procedure  and  practice  in 
the  Senate  when  sitting  on  the  trial  of  impeachments,  to  Andrew  Johnson,  returnable  on 
Friday,  the  13th  day  of  March  instant,  at  ]  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

The  order  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Anthony  offered  an  amendment  to  the  rules  for  the  consideration  of  the 
court,  which,  after  discussion,  was  laid  on  the  table  at  his  request. 
Strike  out  the  last  clause  of  rule  seven  in  the  following  words : 

The  presiding  officer  may,  in  the  first  instance,  sxrbmit  to  the  Senate  without  a  division  all 
questions  of  evidence  and  incidental  (juestions  ;  but  the  same  shall,  on  the  demand  of  oue- 
nfth  of  the  members  present,  be  decided  by  yeas  and  nays. 

And  in  lieu  of  those  words  to  insert : 

The  presiding  officer  of  the  court  may  rule  all  questions  of  evidence  and  incidental  questions, 
which  ruling  shall  stand  as  the  judguieiit  of  the  court,  unless  some  member  of  the  court  shall 
ask  that  a  formal  vote  be  taken  thereon,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  suhuiitted  to  the  court  for 
decision  ;  or  he  may,  at  his  option,  in  the  first  instance  submit  any  such  question  to  a  vote 
of  the  members  of  tlie  court. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  move  that  the  Senate,  sitting  upon  the  trial  of  the  impeach- 
ment, adjourn  to  the  time  at  which  the  summons  just  ordered  is  returnable — Fri- 
day, the  13th  instant,  at  1  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

The  Chief  Justick.  The  question  is  upon  the  motion  to  adjourn  uulil  Fri- 
day, tlu!  13th  instant,  at  1  o'clock  in  the  alternooa. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  the  Chief  Justice  thereupon  declared  the 
Senate  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  adjourned  to  the  time  named, 
and  vacated  the  chair. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  17 

Friday,  March  13,  1868. 

The  Cliief  Justice  entered  tlie  Senate  chamber  and  took  the  chair. 

The  Chikf  JiiSTlcn,  (to  the  Sergcant-at-arm;?.)   Make  proclamation. 

The  Sergkantat-arms.  Hear  ye  !  hear  ye  !  All  persons  are  commanded 
to  keep  silence  while  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  sitting  for  the  trial  of 
the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  by  the  House  of  Representatives  against 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Howard.  Mr.  President,  I  move  for  the  order,  which  is  usual  in  such 
cases,  notifying  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate  is  thus  organized. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  journal  of  the  last  day's  proceedings  will  first  be 
read. 

Mr.  Grimes.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  there  are  several  senators  to  be  sworn. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  first  business  is  to  read  the  journal  of  the  last  ses- 
sion of  the  court,  and  then  the  senators  will  be  sworn. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  sitting  for  the 
trial  of  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  on 
Friday,  March  6,  1SG8. 

Mr.  Co.\KLL\G.  I  move  that  the  reading  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  in 
extcnso,  which  I  understand  are  entered  on  the  journal,  be  dispensed  with.  I 
understand  that  the  other  House  is  ready  to  be  announced. 

The  Chief  Justice.  That  suggestion  wilh  be  considered  as  agreed  to  if  no 
objection  be  made. 

The  Secretary  continued  and  concluded  the  reading  of  the  journal. 

Mr.  Howard.  If  it  be  now  in  order,  to  save  time  I  ask  that  the  order  which 
I  sent  to  the  Chair  be  passed  by  the  Senate,  informing  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives that  the  Senate  is  organized  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 
.   The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order  submitted  by  the 
senator  from  Michigan. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  the  Secretary  inform  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate  is  in  its 
chamber,  and  ready  to  proceed  with  the  trial  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  seats  are  provided  for  the  accommodation  of  the  members. 

The  order  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  introduce  the  managers. 

The  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  appeared  at  the 
bar,  were  announced  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms,  and  conducted  to  the  position  as- 
signed them. 

Managers. — Hon.  John  A.  Bingham,  of  Ohio ;  George  S.  Boutwell,  of  Mas- 
gachusetts;  James  F.  Wilson,  of  Iowa;  John  A.  Logan,  of  Illinois;  Thomas 
Williams,  of  Pennsylvania;  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts;  Thaddeus 
Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  Grimes.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  there  are  several  senators  who  have  not  yet 
been  sworn  as  members  of  this  court.  I  therefore  move  that  the  oath  be  admin- 
istered to  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  call  the  names  of  senators  who  have 
not  yet  been  sworn. 

The  Secretary  called  the  names  of  senators  who  were  not  previously  sworn, 

Messrs.  Edmunds,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  and  Vickers,  severally,  as 
their  names  were  called,  advanced  to  the  desk,  and  the  prescribed  oath  was 
administered  to  them  by  the  Chief  Justice. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  of  the  Senate  will  read  the  return  of  the 
Sergeani-at-arms  to  the  summons  directed  to  be  issued  by  the  Senate. 

2  I  P 


18  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  chief  clerk  read  the  following  return  appended  to  the  writ  of  summons : 

The  forogroing  writ  of  summons,  addressed  to  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  foregoing  precept,  addressed  to  me,  were  tliis  day  duly  served  on  tlie  said 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  by  delivering  to  and  leaving  with  him  true 
and  attested  copies  of  the  same  at  the  Executive  Mansion,  the  usual  place  of  abode  of  the 
said  Andrew  Johnson,  on  Saturday,  the  7th  day  of  March  instant,  at  seven  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon  of  that  day. 

GEORGE  T.  BROWN, 
Sergiant-at-arms  of  the  United  States  Senate. 

Washington,  March  7,  1868. 

The  chief  clerk  administered  to  the  Sergeant-at-arms  the  following  oath  : 

I,  George  T.  Brown,  Sergeant-at-arms  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  do  swear  that 
the  return  made  and  subscribed  by  me  upon  the  process  issued  on  the  7th  day  of  March,  A. 
D.  1868,  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the 
United  States,  is  truly  made,  and  that  I  have  performed  said  service  therein  prescribed :  So 
help  me  God. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  call  the  accused. 

The  Sergeai\t-at-arj\is.  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States; 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States  :  appear  and  answer  the  arti- 
cles of  impeachment  exhibited  against  you  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  JoHMSoN.  I  understand  that  the  President  has  retained  counsel,  and  that 
they  are  now  in  the  President's  room  attached  to  this  wing  of  the  Capitol. 
They  are  not  advised,  I  believe,  of  the  court  being  organized.  I  move  that  the 
Sergeant-at-arms  inform  them  of  that  fact. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection,  the  Sergeant-at-arms  will  so 
inform  the  counsel  of  the  President. 

The  Sergeant  at-arms  presently  returned  with  Hon.  Henry  Stanbcry,  of  Ken- 
tucky ;  Hon.  Benjamin  R,  Curtis,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Hon.  Thomas  A.  R. 
Kelson,  of  Tennessee,  who  were  conducted  to  the  seats  assigned  the  counsel  of 
the  President. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  To  correct  a  clerical  error  in  the  rules,  or  a  mistake  of  the 
types  which  has  introduced  a  repugnance  into  the  rules,  I  offer  the  following 
resolution  by  direction  of  the  committee  which  reported  the  rules  : 

Ordered,  That  the  twenty-third  rule,  respecting  proceedings  on  trial  of  impeachments,  be 
amended  by  inserting  after  the  word  "debate"  the  words  "subject,  however,  to  the  opera- 
tion of  rule  seven." 

If  thus  amended  the  rule  will  read  : 

All  orders  and  decisions  shall  be  made  and  had  by  yeas  and  nays,  which  shall  be  entered 
on  the  record  and  without  debate,  subject,  however,  to  the  operation  of  rule  seven,  except 
when  the  doors  shall  be  closed  &c. 

The  whole  object  is  to  commit  to  the  presiding  ofBcer  the  option  to  submit  a  ques- 
tion without  the  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays  unless  they  be  demanded.  That  was 
the  intention  originally,  but  the  qualifying  words  were  dropped  out  in  the  print. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  questio'u  is  on  amending  the  rules  in  the  manner 
proposed  by  the  senator  from  New  York. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  Sergeant-at-arms  announced  the  members  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, Avho  entered  the  Senate  chamber  preceded  by  the  cliairman  of  tlie  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House,  (Mr.  E.  B.  Washburne,  of  Illinois,)  into  which  that 
body  had  resolved  itself  to  witness  the  trial,  who  was  accompanied  by  the  Speaker 
and  Clerk. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  counsel  for  "the  President.)  Gentlemen,  the 
Senate  is  now  sitting  for  the  trial  of  articles  of  impeachment.  The  President  of 
the  United  States  appears  by  counsel.     The  court  will  now  hear  you. 

Mr.  Stanheuy.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  my  brothers  Curtis  and  Nelson  and  my- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  19 

gelf  are  here  this  morning  as.  counsel  for  the  President.     I  have  his  anthority 
to  enter  his  appearance,  which,  with  your  leave,  I  will  proceed  to  read  : 

In  thb  matter  of  the  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the    United 

States. 

Mr.  Chief  Justice  :  I,  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States, 
having  been  served  with  a  summons  to  appear  before  this  honorable  court,  sit- 
ting as  a  court  of  impeachment,  to  answer  certain  articles  of  impeachment  found 
atid  presented  against  me  by  the  honorable  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,  do  hereby  enter  my  appearance  by  my  counsel,  Henry  Stanbery, 
Benjamin  R.  Curtis,  Jeremiah  S.  Bhick,  William  M.  Evarts,  and  Thomas  A  R. 
Nelson,  who  have  my  warrant  and  authority  therefor,  and  who  are  instructed  by 
me  to  ask  of  this  honorable  court  a  reasonable  time  for  the  preparation  of  my 
answer  to  said  articles. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  and  consultation 
with  my  counsel,  I  am  satisfied  that  at  least  forty  days  will  be  necessary  for  the 
preparation  of  my  answer,  and  I  respectfully  ask  that  it  be  allowed. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  paper  will  be  filed, 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  have  also  a  professional  statement  in 
support  of  the  application.  Whether  it  is  in  order  to  offer  it  now,  or  to  wait  un- 
til the  appearance  is  entered,  your  honor  will  decide. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  appearance  will  be  considered  as  entered.  You 
may  proceed, 

Mr.  StaiXBERY.  I  will  read  the  statement. 

In  the  matter  of  the  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the    United 

States, 

Henry  SStaubery,  Benjamin  R.  Curtis,  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  William  M.  Evarts, 
and  Thomas  A.  R.  Nelson,  of  counsel  for  the  respondent,  move  the  court  for 
the  allowance  of  forty  days  for  the  preparation  of  the  answer  to  the  articles  of 
impeachment,  and  in  support  of  the  motion  make  the  following  professional  state- 
ment: 

The  articles  are  eleven  in  number,  involving  many  questions  of  law  and  fact. 
We  have,  during  the  limited  time  and  opportunity  afforded  us,  considered  as  far 
as  possible  the  field  of  investigation  which  must  be  explored  in  the  preparation 
of  the  answer,  and  the  conclusion  at  which  we  have  arrived  is  that  with  the 
utmost  diligence  the  time  we  have  asked  is  reasonable  and  necessary. 

The  precedents  as  to  time  for  answer  upon  impeachments  before  the  Senate,  to 
which  we  have  had  opportunity  to  refer,  are  those  of  Judge  Chase  and  Judge  Peck. 

In  the  case  of  Judge  Chase  time  was  allowed  from  the  3d  of  January  until 
the  4th  of  February  next  succeeding  to  put  in  his  answer,  a  period  of  thirty-two 
days  ;  but  in  this  case  there  were  only  eight  articles,  and  Judge  Chase  had  been 
for  a  year  cognizant  of  most  of  the  articles,  and  had  been  himself  engaged  iu 
preparing  to  meet  them. 

In  the  case  of  Judge  Peck  there  was  but  a  single  article.  Judge  Peck  asked 
for  time  from  the  10th  to  the  25th  of  May  to  put  in  his  answer,  and  it  was 
granted.  It  appears  that  Judge  Peck  had  been  long  cognizant  of  the  ground 
laid  for  his  impeachment,  and  had  been  present  before  the  committee  of  the 
House  upon  the  examination  of  the  witnesses,  and  had  been  permitted  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  present  to  that  body  an  elaborate  answer  to  the 
charges. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  President  is  fairly  entitled  to  more  time  than  was 
allowed  in  either  of  the  foregoing  cases.-  It  is  proper  to  add  that  the  respondents 
in  these  cases  were  lawyers  fully  capable  of*  preparing  their  own  answers,  and 
that  no  pressing  official  dutie.s  interfered  with  their  attention  to  that  business  ; 
whereaa  the  President,  not  being  a  lawyer,  must  rely  on  his  counsel.     The 


20  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

charges  involve  his  acts,  declarations,  and  intentions,  as  to  all  wLiicli  his  counsel 
must  be  fully  advised  upon  consultation  with  him,  step  by  step,  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  his  defence.  It  is  seldom  that  a  case  requires  such  constant  communication 
between  client  and  counsel  as  this,  and  yet  such  communication  can  only  be  had 
at  such  intervals  as  are  allowed  to  the  President  from  the  usual  hours  that  must 
be  devoted  to  his  high  official  duties. 

We  further  beg  leave  to  suggest  for  the  consideration  of  this  honorable  court, 
that  as  counsel,  careful  as  well  of  their  own  reputation  as  of  the  interests  of  their 
client  in  a  case  of  such  magnitude  as  this,  so  out  of  the  ordinary  range  of  pro- 
iessional  experience,  where  so  much  responsibility  is  felt,  they  submit  to  the 
candid  consideration  of  the  court  that  they  have  a  right  to  ask  for  themselves 
such  opportunity  to  discharge  their  duty  as  seems  to  them  to  be  absolutely 
necessary. 

HENRY  STANBERY, 
B.  R.  CURTIS, 
JEREMIAH  S.  BLACK,    ) 
WILLIAM  M.  EVARTS,    )    ^^^'  -"•  ^• 
THOMAS  A.  R.  NELSON, 

Of  Counsel  Jar  the  Respondent. 
March  13,  1S6S. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  I  am  instructed  by  my  associate 
managers  to  suggest  to  the  Senate  that,  under  the  eighth  rule  adopted  by  the 
Senate  for  the  government  of  this  proceeding,  after  tbe  appearance  of  the  ac- 
cused at  its  bar,  until  that  rule  be  set  aside  by  the  action  of  the  Senate,  a  motion 
for  continiiance  to  answer  is  not  allowed,  the  provision  of  the  rule  being  that  if 
he  appear  he  shall  answer;  if  he  appear  and  fail  to  answer,  the  case  shall  pro- 
ceed as  upon  the  general  issue;  if  he  do  not  appear,  the  case  shall  proceed  as 
upon  the  general  issue.  The  managers  appeared  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate  im- 
pressed with  the  belief  that  the  rule  meant  precisely  what  it  says,  and  that  in 
default  of  an  appearance  the  trial  would  proceed  as  upon  the  plea  of  not  guilty  ; 
if  upon  appearance  no  answer  should  be  fil^d,  in  the  langunge  of  the  rule  the 
trial  should  still  proceed  as  upon  the  plea  of  not  guilty. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  if  the  construction  which  the  honorable 
managers  have  placed  upon  this  rule  be  the  correct  one,  the  counsel  of  the  Pres- 
ident have  been  entirely  misled  by  its  phraseology.  They  have  construed  the 
rule  in  the  light  of  other  similar  rules  existing  in  courts  of  justice.  For  instance, 
in  a  court  of  equity  ove«'  which  your  Honor  in  another  ])lace  presides,  parties 
are  by  a  subpoena  required  to  appear  on  a  certain  day  and  answer  the  bill,  but 
certainly  it  was  never  understood  that  they  were  to  answer  the  bill  on  the  day 
of  the  appearance.  So  it  is  in  a  variety  of  other  legal  proceedings ;  parties  are 
summoned  to  appear  on  a  certain  day,  but  the  day  when  they  are  to  plead  is 
either  fixed  by  some  general  rule  of  the  tribunal,  or  there  is  to  be  a  special  order 
in  the  particular  case.  Here  wo  find  a  nde  by  which  the  President  is  n  quired 
to  appear  on  this  day  and  "answer"  and  "abide."  Certainly  that  part  of  the 
rule  which  relates  to  abiding  has  reference  to  future  proceedings  and  to  the  final 
resvdt  of  the  case.  And  so,  as  we  have  construed  tlie  rule,  that  part  of  it  which 
relates  to  answering  has  reference  to  a  future  proceeding,  which  occurs  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  justice,  as  I  have  stated,  either  under  some  general  nde  or 
by  a  special  order  of  the  court.  We  submit,  therefore,  as  Cf)unsel  for  tlu;  J^res- 
ident,  that  this  interpretation  of  the  rule  which  is  placed  upon  it  by  tlie  hon- 
orable managers  is  not  the  correct  one. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  say  on  beh,iU'  of  the  mana- 
gers that  we  do  not  see  how  it  were  possible  for  tlie  eighth  ruh^  adopted  by  the 
Senate  to  mislead  the  respondent  of  counsel.'    That  rule  provides  that — 

Upon  the  pre.scutation  of  the  articles  of  impcaclimont  and  the  ori^auizution  of  the  Senate 
as  hereinbefore  provided,  a  writ  of  summons  shall  issue  to  the  accused,  reciting  said  articles, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  21 

anri  notifyinf;:  him  to  appear  before  tlio  Senate  on  a  day  aud  at  a  place  to  ho.  fixed  by  tlie 
Senate  and  named  in  sncli  writ,  and  tile  liis  answer  to  said  articles  of  impeacbmeut,  and  to 
stand  to  and  abide  the  orders  and  judgments  of  the  Senate  thereon. 

The  rule  further  provides  that — 

If  the  accused,  after  service,  shall  fail  to  appear,  cither  in  person  or  by  attorney,  on  the 
day  so  fixed  therefor,  as  aforesaid,  or  appearing,  shall  fail  to  file  his  answer  to  such  articles 
of  impeachment,  the  trial  shall  proceed  nevertheless  as  upon  a  j)lea  of  not  guilty. 

The  learned  counsel,  in  the  professional  statement  submitted  to  the  Senate, 
refer  to  the  cases  of  Judge  Chase  and  Judge  Peck.  I  presume  that  in  the  ex- 
amination of  the  records  of  those  cases  the  attention  of  counsel  was  directed  to  the 
rules  adopted  by  the  Senate  for  the  government  of  its  action  on  the  trial  of  those 
cases.  By  reference  to  the  rules  adopted  by  the  Senate  for  the  trial  of  the  cases 
of  Judge  Chase  and  Judge  Peck,  we  find  that  a  very  material  change  has  been 
made  by  the  Senate  in  the  adoption  of  the  present  rules.  The  third  rule  in  the 
case  of  the  trial  of  Judge  Chase  prescribed  the  form  of  summons,  and  requh-ed 
that  on  the  day  to  be  fixed  the  respondent  should  appear,  and  "  then  and  there 
answer."  The  same  rule  was  adopted  in  the  Peck  case  But  the  present  rule 
adds  to  the  rule  of  those  cases  the  words  to  which  I  have  called  the  attention  of 
the  Senate,  that  he  shall  appear  "  and  file  lii^  answer  to  said  articles  of  impeach- 
ment," and  that  if,  on  appearing,  he  "  shall  fail  to  file  his  answer  to  such  articles  of 
impeachment,  the  trial  shall  proceed  nevertheless  as  upon  a  plea  of  not  guilty." 

I  submit,  therefore,  Mr.  President,  that  the  change  which  has  been  made  in  ths 
rules  for  the  government  of  this  case  must  have  been  made  for  some  good  reason. 
What  that  reason  may  have  been  may  be  a  subject  of  discussion  in  this  case  here- 
after ;  but  the  change  meets  us  upon  the  presentation  of  this  motion  ;  and  we 
therefore  ask,  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  which  we  are  here 
representing,  that  the  rule  adopted  by  the  Senate  for  the  government  of  this  case 
may  be  enforced.  It  is  for  the  Senate  to  say  whether  the  rule  shall  stand  as  a 
rule  to  govern  the  case,  or  whether  it  shall  be  changed  ;  but,  standing  as  a  rule  at 
this  time,  we  ask  for  its  enforcement. 

Mr.  Sta\bery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  the  objection  taken  by  the  honorable 
managers  is  so  singular  that  in  the  Avhole  course  of  my  practice  I  have  not  met 
with  an  example  like  it.  A  case  like  this,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  in  which  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States  is  arraigned  upon  an  impeachment  presented  by  the 
House  of  Representatives,  a  case  of  the  greatest  mugnitude  we  have  ever  had, 
i?,  as  to  time,  to  be  treated  as  if  it  were  a  case  before  a  police  court,  to  be  put 
through  with  raih*oad  speed  on  the  first  day  the  criminal  appears  !  Where  do 
my  learned  friends  find  a  precedent  for  calling  on  the  trial  upon  this  day  ?  It 
is  in  the  language  of  their  summons.  They  say,  "  We  have  notified  you  to 
appear  here  and  answer  on  a  given  day."  We  are  here  ;  we  enter  our  appear- 
ance ;  but  they  ask,  "  Where  is  your  answer  ?"  As  my  learned  brother  [Mr. 
Curtis]  has  said,  you  have  used  precisely  the  language  that  is  used  in  a  subpoena 
in  chancery ;  but  who  ever  hear.d  that  when  the  defendant  in  a  chancery  bill 
enters  his  appearance  he  must  come  with  his  answer,  ready  to  go  on  with  the 
case,  and  enter  upon  the  trial?  We  were  summoned  to  appear  and  answer  ; 
we  have  entered  our  appearance  and  stated  that  we  propose  to  answei- ;  we  do 
not  wish  this  case  to  go  by  deffiult ;  we  want  a  reasonable  time ;  nothing  more 

Consider,  if  you  please,  that  it  is  but  a  few  days  since  the  President  has  been 
served  with  this  summons  ;  that,  as  yet,  all  his  counsel  are  not  present.  Your 
honor  will  observe,  that  of  the  five  counsel  who  have  signed  this  professional 
statement,  two  are  not  present  and  cannot  be  present  to-day,  and  are  not  (at 
least,  I  am  sure,  one  is  not)  in  the  city  to-day.  Not  one  of  us,  on  looking  at 
these  rules,  ever  suspected  that  it  was  the  intention  to  bring  on  the  trial  this 
day.  And  yet  I  understand  the  learned  gentlemen  who  read  these  rules  to  so 
read  them  according  to  the  letter  that  we  must  go  on  to-day.  Now,  let  us  see 
Low  it  will  do  to  read  them  all  according  to  the  letter.     If  the  gentlemen  are 


22  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

riglit,  if  we  are  here  to  answer  to-day,  and  to  go  into  the  trial  to-daj,  then  this 
is  the  day  fixed  for  the  trial  by  your  rules.     Let  us  see  whether  it  is. 
Rule  niue  provides  : 

At  twelve  o'clock  ami  thirty  minutes  afternoon  of  the  day  appointed  for  tlie  return  of 
the  sumuious  against  the  person  impeached. 

This  is  the  return  day ;  it  is  not  the  trial  day.  The  letter  answers  the  gen- 
tlemen. According  to  the  letter  of  the  eighth  rule  they  say  ''  this  i^  the  trial 
flfiy  >  go  on  ;  not  a  moment's  delay  ;  file  your  answer  and  proceed  to  trial  ;  or 
without  your  answer  let  a  general  plea  of  not  guilty  be  entered,  and  proceed  at 
(juce  with  the  trial."  The  ninth  rule  says  this  is  the  return  day,  not  the  trial 
day.     Then  the  tenth  rule  says  : 

The  person  impeached  shall  then  be  called  to  appear  and  answer  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment against  him. 

I'hat  is  the  call  made  on  the  return  day.  The  accused  is  called  to  appear 
and  answer.  He  is  here  ;  he  appears  ;  he  states  his  willingness  to  answer  ;  he 
only  asks  a  reasonable  time  to  prepare  the  answer.  Then  rule  eleven  speaka 
"  of  the  day  appointed  for  the  trial."  That  is  not  this  day.  This  day,  the 
day  which  the  gentlemen  would  make  the  first  day  of  the  trial,  is,  in  your  own 
rules,  put  down  for  the  return  day,  and  you  must  have  some  other  day  for  the 
trial  day  to  suit  the  convenience  of  the  parties;  so  that  the  letter  of  one  rule 
answers  the  letter  of  another  rule. 

But,  pray,  Mr  Chief  Justice,  is  it  possible  that  under  these  circumstances 
we  are  to  be  caught  in  this  trap  of  the  letter  ?  As  yet  there  has  not  been  time 
to  prepare  an  answer  to  a  single  one  of  these  articles.  As  yet  the  President 
has  been  engaged  in  procuring  his  counsel,  and  all  the  time  occupied  with  so 
much  consultation  as  was  necessary  to  enable  us  to  fix  the  shortest  period  which 
in  our  judgment  is  necessary  for  the  due  preparation  of  his  answer. 

Now,  look  back  through  the  whole  line  of  impeachments,  even  to  the  worst 
times,  and  whtre  there  was  the  greatest  haste ;  go  back  to  English  precedents, 
and  English  fair  play  always  gave  fair  time.  This  is  the  first  instance  to  be 
found  on  record  anywhere,  in  which,  upon  the  appearance  day,  the  defendant 
was  required  to  put  in  his  answer  and  immediately  proceed  to  the  trial.  Why, 
sir,  we  have  not  a  witness  summoned  ;  we  hardly  know  what  witnesses  to  sum- 
mon until  the  pleadings  are  prepared.     We  are  entirely  at  sea. 

I  submit,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  to  the  honorable  court  that  arc  to  try  this  case, 
whether  we  are  to  be  put  through  with  this  railroad  speed  ?  "  Strike,  but 
hear."  Give  us  the  opportunity  that  even  in  common  civil  cases  is  allowed  to 
tlie  defendant,  hardly  ever  less  than  thirty  days  for  his  pleading  and  answer; 
more  often  sixty.  Give  us  time;  give  us  a  reasonable  time  ;  and  then,  with  a 
fair  hearing,  we  shall  be  prepared  for  that  sentence,  whatever  it  may  be,  that 
you  shall  pronounce. 

Mr.  ]\Ianager  BiMGHAM,  Mr.  President,  it 

.  The  Chief  Jcstick.  Before  coun.sel  proccsed,  the  Chief  Justice  desires  to  state 
to  the  Senate  that  he  is  embarrassed  in  the  construction  of  the  rule.  The  twenty- 
first  rule  provides  that  "  the  case  .on  each  side  shall  be  op»;ned  by  one  person." 
He  understands  that  as  referring  to  the  case  when  the  evidence  is  in  and  tho 
cause  is  ready  !or  argument.  The  twentieth  nile  provides  that  "all  preliminary 
or  interlocutory  questions  and  all  motions  shall  be  argued  for  not  exceeding  one 
hour  on  each  side,  unless  the  Senate  shall  by  order  extend  the  time."  Whether 
that  is  intended  to  a[)ply  to  the  whole  argument  upon  each  side  or  to  tlie  argu- 
ment of  each  counsel  who  may  address  the  court  is  the  question  which  the  Chief 
Justice  is  at  a  loss  to  solve.  In  tin;  present  case  he  has  allowed  the  argument 
to  proceed  without  attempting  to  restrict  it,  and,  unless  the  Senate  order  other- 
wise, h(!  will  proceed  in  that  course. 

Mr.  M.mager  Bingham.  I^Ir.  President,  it  wa.s  not  my  purpose  when  I  raised 
the  question,  under  the  rule,  to  be  decided  by  the  Senate,  to  touch  in  any  way 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PRESIDENT.  2J 

upon  the  merits  of  any  application  that  might  hereafter  be  made,  after  i^sne 
joined,  for  an  extension  of  time  for  preparation  for  the  triaL  The  only  objf'ct  I 
had  in  view,  Mr.  Pn^sident,  was  to  see  whether  the  Senate  was  disposed  to  abide 
by  its  own  rules,  and,  by  raising  the  question,  to  remind  senators  of  what  they 
do  know,  that  in  this  proceeding  they  ai-e  a  rule  and  a  law  to  themselves.  Neither 
the  common  law  nor  the  civil  law  furnishes  any  rule  whatever  for  the  conduct 
of  this  trial,  save,  it  may  be,  the  rule  which  governs  in  matters  of  evidence. 

There  is  nothing  more  clearly  settled  in  this  country,  and  in  that  country 
whence  we  derive  our  laws  generally,  than  the  proposition  which  I  have;  just 
stated  ;  and  hence  the  necessity  that  the  Senate  should  prescribe  rules  for  the 
conduct  of  the  trial ;  and,  having  prescribed  rules,  my  associate  managers  and 
myself  deemed  it  important  to  inquire  whether  those  rules,  upon  the  threshold 
of  the  proceeding,  were  to  be  disregarded  and  set  aside. 

I  may  be  pardoned  for  saying  that  I  am  greatly  surprised  at  the  hasty  word 
which  dropped  from  the  lips  of  my  learned  and  accomplished  friend  who  has  just 
taken  his  seat,  |  Mr.  StanberyJ  when  he  failed  to  discriminate  between  the 
objection  made  here  and  an  objection  that  may  hereafter  be  made  to  a  motion  for 
the  continuance  of  the  trial.  When  the  learned  gentleman  spoke  of  the  trial 
day,  he  seemed  to  forget  that  the  trial  day  never  comes  until  issue  joined.  Why, 
Mr.  President,  there  is  nothing  clearer,  nothing  better  known,  1  think,  to  my 
learned  friend  than  this,  that  the  making  up  of  the  issue  before  any  tribunal  of 
justice  and  the  trial  are  very  distinct  transactions — perfectly  distinct. 

A  very  remarkable  case  in  the  twelfth  volume  of  State  Trials  lies  before  me, 
wherein  Lord  Holt  presided,  on  the  trial  of  Sir  Richard  Grahme,  Viscount 
Preston,  and  others,  charged  with  high  treason.  In  that  case  the  accused  ap- 
peared, as  the  accused  by  the  learned  gentlemen  appears  this  morning,  after  the 
indictment  presented  in  the  court,  and  before  plea  asked  for  continuance.  The 
answer  that  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  was,  we  are  not  to  con-' 
sider  the  question  of  trial  or  the  time  of  trial  until  plea  be  pleaded.  Let  me 
give  his  very  words  : 

L.  C.  J.  Holt.  My  lord,  we  debate  the  time  of  your  trial  too  early ;  for  you  must  put  your- 
self upon  your  trial  first  by  pleading. 

And  when  Lord  Preston  presses  him  again  on  the  point  Lord  Chief  Justice 
Holt  responds  : 

My  lord,  we  cannot  dispute  with  you  concerning  your  trial  till  you  have  pleaded.  I  know 
not  what  you  will  say  to  it ;  for  aught  I  know  there  niny  be  no  occasion  for  a  trial.  I  can- 
not tell  what  you  will  plead;  your  lord.ship  must  answer  to  the  indictment  before  we  can 
enter  into  the  debate  of  this  matter. — 12  Stute  Truils,  6(34. 

The  eighth  rule  of  the  Senate,  last  clause,  provides  that  if  the  party  appear- 
ing shall  plead  guilty  there  may  be  no  further  proceedings  in  the  case,  no  trial 
about  it  ;  nothing  remains  to  be  done  but  to  pronounce  judgment  under  the  Con- 
stitution. It  is  time  enough  for  us  to  talk  about  a  trial  when  we  have  an  issue. 
The  rule  is  a  plain  one,  a  simple  one. 

And  I  may  be  pardoned  for  saying  that  I  fail  to  perceive  anything  in  rules 
ten  or  eleven,  to  which  the  learned  counsel  have  referred,  that  by  any  kind  of 
construction  can  be  supposed  to  limit  tlie  effect  of  the  words  in  rule  eight,  to  wit  : 

If  the  accused,  after  service,  shall  fail  to  appear,  either  in  person  or  by  attorney,  on  the 
day  so  fixed  therefor  as  afore.said,  or  appearing  shall  fail  to  file  his  answer,  [on  tlie  day  oa 
which  he  is  summoned  to  appear,  J  the  trial  sliull  proceed  nevertheless  as  upon  a  plea  of  uot 
guilty. 

When  words  are  plain  in  a  written  law  there  is  an  end  to  all  construction  ; 
they  must  be  followed.  The  managers  so  thought  when  they  appeared  at  thi.s 
bar.  All  they  ask  is  the  enforcement  of  the  rule,  uot  a  postponement  of  forty 
days,  and  at  the  end  of  that  time  to  be  met  with  a  dilatory  plea — a  motion,  if 
you  please,  to  quash  the  articles,  or  a  question  raising  the  inquiry  whether  this 
is  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

It  seems  to  me,  if  I  may  be  pardoned  for  making  one  further  remark,  that  in 


24  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

prescribing  hy  this  rule  that  the  summons,  with  a  copy  of  the  articles,  should 
issue,  to  be  returned  on  a  day  certain,  giving,  as  in  this  case,  six  days  in  ad- 
vance, it  was  intended  thereby  to  require  as  well  as  to  enable  the  party  on  tho 
day  fixed  for  his  appearance,  as  the  rule  presci'ibes,  to  come  to  this  bar  pre- 
pared to  make  answer  to  the  articles. 

Permit  me  to  say  further — what  is  doubtless  known  to  every  one  within  the 
hearing  of  my  voice — that  technical  rules  do  in  nowise  control  or  limit  or  fetter 
the  aciion  of  this  body  ;  and  under  the  plea  of  "  not  guilty,"  as  provided  in  the 
rules,  every  conceivable  defence  that  the  party  accused  could  make  to  the  articles 
here  preferred  can  be  admitted.  Why,  then,  this  delay  of  forty  days  to  draw 
up  an  answer  of  not  guilty? 

But  what  we  desire  to  know  on  behalf  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  by 
whose  order  we  appear  here,  is  whether  an  answer  is  to  be  filed  in  accordance 
with  the  rule ;  and,  if  it  be  not  filed,  whether  the  rule  itself  is  to  be  enforced 
by  the  Senate  which  made  it,  and  a  plea  of  not  guilty  be  entered  for  the  ac- 
cused. That  is  our  inquiry.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  enter  into  any  discussion 
upon  the  question  of  postponing  the  day  for  the  commencement  of  the  trial. 
My  desire  is  at  present  to  see  whether,  under  this  rule,  and  by  force  of  this  rule, 
we  can  obtain  an  issue. 

The  Chief  Jistice.  Senators,  the  counsel  for  the  President  submit  a  motion 
that  forty  days  be  allowed  for  the  preparation  of  his  answer.  The  rule  requires 
that  this,  as  other  questions,  shall  be  taken  without  debate.  You  who  are  in 
favor  of  that  motion  will  say  "  ay." 

Mr.  Edmunds.  Upon  that  subject  I  submit  the  following'  order  : 

Ordered,  That  the  respoudeut  file  his  answer  to  the  articles  of  impeachment  on  or  before 
the  1st  day  of  April  next,  and  that  the  managers  of  the  impeachment  file  their  replication 
thereto  within  three  days  thereafter,  and  that  the  matter  stand  for  trial  on  Monday,  April  6, 

1868. 

Mr.  Morton.  I  move  that  the  Senate  retire  to  consult  in  regard  to  its  de- 
termination. 

5Ir.  Manager  Bingham.  I  am  instructed  by  the  managers  respectfully  to  ask 
that  the  Senate  shall  pass  upon  the  motion  to  reject,  under  the  eighth  rule  of  this 
Senate  until  that  rule  be  set  aside,  the  application  to  deler  the  day  of  answer. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  motion  of  the  counsel  for  the  President  is  the  mo- 
tion in  order  before  the  Chair.  The  Chair  regards  the  motion  submitted  by  the 
senator  from  Vermont  [Mr.  Edmunds]  as  an  amendment ;  and  the  question  is 
upon  agreeing  to  the  order  submitted  by  him  as  an  amendment  to  the  motion  of 
the  President's  counsel. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  What  becomes  of  the  motion  of  the  senator  from  Indiana? 

Mr.  Sumner.  What  was  the  motion  of  the  senator  from  Indiana  ? 

Mr.  Morton.  That  the  Senate  retire  to  consult  in  regard  to  its  determination. 

Mr.  Sumner.  That  is  the  true  motion. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  the  senator  from  In- 
diana, that  the  court  now  retire  for  consultation. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  at  three  minutes  before  two  o'clock  the  sen- 
ators, witli  the  Chief  Justice,  repaired  to  the  reception-rooni  of  the  Senate  for 
consultation. 

At  eight  minutes  past  fiur  o'clock  the  senators  returned  to  the  Senate  cham- 
ber, and  the  Chief  .lustier-  rcsumi'd  the  chair. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chii-f  Justice  is  instructed  to  state  to  the  counsol 
for  the  accus(>d  that  the  motion  inadii  by  them  is  overruled,  dfMiied,  and  that  the 
Senate  has  adopted  an  ordor,  which  will  be  read  by  tin;  Secretary. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  the  respondent  file  an.swcr  to  the  articles  of  impeachment  on  or  before  Mon- 
day, the  2'.5d  day  of  March  iu.stant. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  I  am  instructed  by  the  managers  to 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  25 

submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  Senate  a  motion  which  I  send  to  the  desk  to 
be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

The  mauagers  ask  the  Senate  re.si)ectfiilly  to  adopt  the  following  order: 
Ordered,  That  upon  the  filing  of  a  replication  by  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives  the  trial  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  upon  the  arti- 
cles of  impeachment  exhibited  by  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  proceed  forthwith. 

The  Chief  Justice  put  the  question  upon  the  order  asked  by  the  managers 
and  declared  that  it  appeared  to  be  rejected. 

Mr.  Su.M.\ER  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered  ;  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  25,  nays  26;  as  follows  : 

Yeas  :  Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Drake, 
Ferry,  Harlan,  Howard,  Morgan,  Morton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy, 
Ramsey,  Ross,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 'i.5. 

Nays:  Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Edmunds,  Fessenden,  Fowler, 
Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Howe,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Trum- 
bull, A'an  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — 26. 

Absent  :  Messrs.  Cragin,  Doolittle,  and  Wade — 3 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  order  asked  by  the  managers  is  denied. 
Mr.  Sherman.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  submit  the  following  motion  : 

Ordered,  That  the  trial  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  shall  proceed  on  the  6th  day  ot 
April  next. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  move  to  amend  that  order  by  striking  out  "the  6th  day  of 
April  "  and  inserting  "the  Ist  day  of  April." 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  should  like  to  inqtiire  of  the  President  and  the  Senate 
if  the  managers  in  behalf  of  the  House  of  -Eepresentatives  have  a  right  to  be 
heard  upon  that  motion  ? 

Mr.  Sumner,  Unquestionably. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  managers  have  a 
right  to  be  heard,  and  also  the  counsel  for  the  accused. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  however 
imgracious  it  may  seem  on  the  part  of  the  managers  acting  for  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  thereby  representing  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to 
press  an  early  trial  of  the  accused,  yet  our  duty  to  those  who  sent  us  here, 
representing  their  wishes,  speaking  in  their  presence  and  by  their  command, 
the  state  of  the  country,  the  interests  of  the  people,  all  seem  to  require  that  we 
should  urge  the  speediest  possible  trial. 

Among  the  reasons  why  the  trial  should  be  put  off  which  the  learned  gentle- 
men who  appear  for  the  accused  have  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate, 
are  precedents  of  delay  in  the  trials  of  the  earlier  days  of  the  republic;  and  we 
were  told  that  "railroad  speed"  ought  not  to  be  used  in  this  trial.  Sir,  why 
not?  Railroads  have  affected  every  other  business  in  the  civilized  world;  tele- 
graphs have  brought  places  together  that  were  thousands  of  miles  apart.  It  takes 
less  time  to  send  to  California  and  get  a  witness — it  takes  infinitely  less  time,  if  I 
may  use  so  strong  an  expression,  to  send  a  message  for  him — from  California 
now  than  it  took  to  send  for  a  witness  from  Philadelphia  to  Boston  at  the  trial  of 
Judge  Chase.  We  must  not  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  there  are  railroads 
and  that  there  are  telegraphs,  as  bearing  upon  this  trial.  They  give  the  accused 
the  privilege  of  calling  his  counsel  together  instantly,  of  getting  answers  from 
any  witness  that  he  may  have  instantly,  of  bringing  him  here  in  hours  where  it 
once,  and  not  long  ago,  took  months  ;  and,  therefore,  I  respectfully  submit  that 
it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  railroads  and  telegraphs  have  changed  the  order 
of  time.  In  every  other  business  of  life  we  recognize,  that  change,  and  why 
^hould  we  not  in  this  ? 

But,  passing  from  that,  which  is  but  an  incident  and  a  detail  of  the  trial,  will 
you  allow  me  further  to  suggest  that  the  ordinary  course  of  justice,  the  ordinary 


26  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

delays  in  court,  the  ordinary  time  given  in  ordinary  cases  for  men  to  answer 
■uheu  called  before  tribunals  of  justice,  have  no  application  to  this  case.  The 
rules  by  which  cases  are  heard  and  determined  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  are  not  rules  applicable  to  the  case  at  bar ;  and  for  this  reason,  if 
for  no  other,  when  ordinary  trials  are  had,  when  ordinary  questions  are 
examined  at  the  bar  of  any  court,  there  is  no  danger  to  the  common  weal  in 
delay;  the  republic  may  take  no  detriment  if  the  trial  is  postponed;  to  give  the 
accused  time  injures  nobody;  to  grant  him  indulgence  hurts  no  one,  and  may 
help  one,  and  perhaps  an  innocent  man.  But  here  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives have  presented  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate,  in  the  most  solemn  form,  the 
Chief  Executive  officer  of  the  nation.  They  say  (and  they  desire  your  judg- 
ment upon  tiieir  accusation)  that  he  has  usurped  power  which  does  not  belong 
to  him ;  that  he  is,  at  this  very  time,  breaking  the  laws  solemnly  enacted  by 
you,  the  Senate,  and  those  who  present  him  here,  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  he  still  proposes  so  to  do. 

Sir,  who  is  the  criminal — I  beg  pardon  for  the  word — the  respondent  at  the 
bar?  He  is  the  Chief  Executive  of  the  nation  ;  and  when  I  have  said  that,  I 
have  taken  out  from  all  ordinary  rules  this  trial,  because  I  submit  with  defer- 
ence that  here  and  now,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world,  has  any 
nation  brought  its  ruler  to  the  bar  of  its  highest  tribunal  in  a  consiitutional 
method,  under  the  rules  and  forms  prescribed  by  its  constitution;  and  therefore 
all  the  lules,  all  the  analogies,  all  the  likeness  to  a  common  and  ordinary  trial  of 
any  cause,  civil  or  criminal,  cease  at  once,  are  silent,  •  J.  ought  not  to  weigh  in 
judgment.  Other  nations  have  tried  and  condemned  their  kings  and  rulers,  but 
the  process  has  always  been  in  violence  and  subversion  of  their  constitutions  and 
framev.'ork  of  government,  not  in  submission  to  and  in  accordance  with  it. 

When  I  name  the  i:espondent  as  the  Chief  Executive,  I  thereby  say  he  is  the 
Commander-in-chief  of  your  armies;  he  specially  claims  that  command,  not  by 
force  and  under  the  limitations  of  your  laws,  but  as  a  prerogative  of  his  office,  and 
subject  to  his  arbitrary  will.  He  controls,  through  his  subordinates,  your  treas- 
ury, lie  commands  your  navy.  Thus  he  has  all  the  elements  of  power.  He  con- 
trols your  foreign  relatiuns.  In  any  hour  of  passion,  of  prejudice,  of  revenge 
for  fancied  wrono^  in  his  own  mind,  he  may  complicate  your  peace  with  any 
nation  of  the  earth,  even  while  he  is  being  arraigned  as  a  respondent  at  your  bar. 
And  mark  me,  sir,  may  I  respectfully  submit  that  the  very  question  here  at 
issue  this  day  and  this  hour  is,  whether  he  shall  control  beyond  the  reach  of 
your  laws,  and  outside  of  your  laws,  the  army  of  the  United  States.  The  one 
greatest  of  all  questions  here  at  issue  is  whether  he  shall  be  able,  against  law — 
setting  aside  your  laws,  setting  aside  the  decrees  of  the  Senate,  setting  aside 
the  laws  enacted  by  Congress,  overriding  the  legislative  power  of  the  country, 
claiming  it  as  an  attribute  of  executive  power  only — to  control  the  great  militJiry 
arm  of  this  government,  and  contnd  it  if  he  chooses,  at  his  own  good  pleasure, 
to  your  ruin  and  the  ruin  of  the  country. 

Indeed,  sir,  do  we  not  know,  may  wc  not  upon  this  motion  assume,  the  fact 
up'on  common  fame  and  the  current  history  of  events  that  the  whole  bu.^iness  of 
the  War  Department  of  this  country  pauses  until  this  trial  goes  through!  He 
will  not  recognize,  as  we  all  know,  the  Secretary  of  War ;  him  whom  this  body 
haiS  declared  the  legal  Secretary  of  War,  and  whom  Congress,  under  its 
power  legitimately  exercised,  has  determined  shall  be  recognized  as  the 
legal  Secretary  of  War.  Do  we  not  also  know,  that  while  lu;  claims  to  have 
appointed  a  Secretary  ad  interim,  he  dare  not  recognize  him,  and  thus  the  entirf. 
business  of  the  War  Department  is  stopped?  The  Senate  of  the  United  States 
have  confirmed  the  appointment  of  many  a  gallant  officer  of  the  army  who,  by 
law  and  by  right,  ought  to  have  his  duties  and  pay  commence  the  day  and  the 
hour  when  his  commission  reaches  him  ;  yet  those  commissions  have  been  d(^- 
layed  weeks,  and  the  proposition  on  the  respondent's  part  is  that  they  shall  be 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  27 

clelayed  at  least  forty  days  longer — as  long  as  it  took  God  to  destroy  the  world 
by  a  flood — and  for  what  ?  In  order  that  five  very  respectable,  highly  intelligent, 
very  learned  and  able  lawyers  may  write  an  answer  to  certain  articles  of  impeach- 
ment. Having  failed  in  that,  now  the  proposition  is  to  delay  more  and  more, 
while  there  is  at  least  one  department  of  the  government  thrown  into  confusion 
and  disorganization  as  we  are  thus  delaying. 

But,  sir,  this  is  the  least  of  the  mischiefs  of  delay.  The  great  pulse  of  the 
nation  beats  perturbedly  while  even  this  strictly  constitutional,  but  highly  and 
truly  anomalous  proceeding  goes  on.  It  pauses  fitfully  when  we  pause,  and 
goes  forward  when  we  go  forward ;  and  the  very  question  of  national  prosperity 
in  this  country  arising  out  of  the  desire  of  men  to  have  business  interests 
settled,  to  have  prosperity  return,  to  have  the  spring  open  as  auspiciously  under 
our  laws  as  it  will  under  the  laws  of  nature,  depend  upon  our  actions  here  and 
now.  I  say  the  very  pulse  of  the  country  beats  here,  and  beating  fitfully, 
requires  us  to  still  it  by  bringing  this  respondent  to  justice,  and  may  God  send 
him  a  good  deliverance,  if  he  so  deserve,  at  the  earliest  possible  hour ;  ay,  the 
very  earliest  hour  consistently  with  tlie  preservation  of  his  rights.  Instead, 
therefore,  of  fixing  a  time  now  in  advance  when  he  shall  be  tried,  (if  you  will 
allow  me  respectfully  to  say  as  much,)  giving  him  time,  which  he  may  be  sup- 
posed to  want  for  preparation  of  his  trial,  fix  the  trial  at  an  early  day,  and  then, 
if  his  counsel  choose  to  draw  analogies  from  the  trials  under  criminal  law  or  the 
civil  law,  let  him  when  he  comes  here,  under  his  oath  and  under  the  certificate 
of  his  counsel,  say  that  '  ^  cannot  get  ready  to  meet  a  given  article,  and  if  he 
shows  due  diligence,  then  give  him  all  the  time  he  ought  to  have  to  fairly  put 
before  you  the  exact  form  and  feature  of  everything  he  has  done. 

But,  I  humbly  submit,  do  i^jc  in  advance  presume  that  he  cannot  get  ready 
until  he  comes  and  shows  to  the  Senate  some  reason,  upon  his  oath,  M'hy  he  may 
not  be  ready.  Let  every  part  of  the  case  stand  upon  its  own  merits;  If  the 
respondent  comes  here  and  says  to  the  Senate,  after  he  puts  in  his  answer,  "  I 
um  not  ready  for  trial  because  I  cannot  get  a  given  witness,"  let  him,  as  his 
counsel  claims  we  ought  to  do,  follow  the  ordinary  rule  and  say  to  the  Senate, 
"  If  1  could  get  that  witness  he  would  testify  thus,  and  thus,  and  thus  ;"  and 
the  managers  would  answer,  "  We  will  either  produce  him  here  at  the  bar  when 
you  call  him,  or  we  will  admit  that  he  would  testify  thus,  and  thus,  and  thus, 
and  you  shall  have  the  entire  benefit  of  the  testimony  ;  for  God  forbid — and  I 
speak  with  all  reverence — that  we  should  deprive  him  of  a  single  right  or  a 
single  indulgence  consistent  with  the  public  safety  and  speedy  justice.  There- 
fore, whenever  any  such  motion  is  made,  you,  senators,  I  respectfully  submit, 
will  be  ready,  able,  and  willing,  desirous  to  meet  it,  and  grant  indulgence  when 
a  case  is  made  out  for  indulgence. 

Allow  me  one  other  word.  We  ask  no  more  of  the  Senate  as  against  this 
defendant  than  what  we  are  willing  to  deal  to  ourselves.  The  great,  perhnps 
tJie  determining  act,  upon  which  the  respondent  is  here  brought  to  your  bar,  was 
committed  by  him  on  the  21st  of  February.  He  knew  it  and  all  its  consequences 
then  as  well  and  better  than  we  could.  The  House  of  Representatives  dealt 
with  the  action  of  the  respondent  on  the  22d.  On  the  4th  of  March  we  brought 
before  the  Senate  and  to  his  notice  what  we  claimed  were  thelegal  consequences 
of  that  act.  We  are  now  come  here  ready  for  trial  of  our  accusation  founded 
upon  that  act.  We  are  here  instant  for  trial,  pressing  for  trial  de  die  in  difm. 
M«ke  the  days  as  long  as  the  judges  of  England  made  them,  when  they  sat 
twenty-two  liours  out  of  the  twenty-four  in  the  trial  of  great  criminals,  and  we, 
tlie  managers  on  behalf  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  God  giving  us  strength, 
will  still  attend  here  at  your  bar  every  hour  and  every  moment,  your  humble 
pervitors,  for  the  purpose  of  justice.  We  have  had  only  from  the  22d  of  Feb- 
ruary to  now  to  make  ready  for  the  trial  of  the  accusation.  He  has  had  just 
as  long.     He  knew  at  first  more  about  this  action  of  his  than   we  could.     He 


28  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

knows  all  about  it  now.  He  knows  exactly  what  lie  has  done,  and  why  and 
how  he  has  done  it.  We  can  only  partly  guess  at  all  he  has  done  from  the 
part  we  see;  yet  we  are  willing  to  go  to  trial  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  the 
IJuitcd  States,  say  with  only  these  fourteen  days'  preparation.  You  have  granted 
him  seven  more,  t^ay  twenty-one  in  all,  and  we  ask,  after  you  have  given  him 
one-third  more  time  than  we  have  had  to  prosecute,  at  least  that  he  shall  beheld 
to  meet  us  with  the  defence. 

Sir,  I  trust  you  will  pardon  me  a  single  further  suggestion.  I  hope  hereaf- 
ter no  mau  anywhere  will  say  that  the  charges  upon  which  we  have  arraigned 
Andrew  Johnson  at  this  bar  are  either  frivolous,  unsubstantial,  or  of  none  effect, 
because  five  gentlemen  of  the  highest  respectability,  skill,  and  legal  acumen,  as 
counsel — I  know  one  of  them  would  not  for  his  life  say  what  he  did  not  be- 
lieve— Iiave  told  us  that  the  articles  of  impeachment  were  sq  grave  and  so  substan- 
tial that  it  would  take  them  forty  days  even  to  write  an  answer  to  them.  The 
charges  are  so  grave,  so  momentous,  so  potent,  that,  with  all  their  legal  ability, 
forty  days  will  be  required  to  write  an  answer ;  and  then,  after  they  have  had 
forty  days  in  addition  to  ten  already,  giving  them  fifty  days,  they  say  they 
would  need  still  further  time  for  preparation  to  meet  us  on  the  trial  of  these 
charges. 

I  may  only  humbly  hope  tliat  I  have  made  myself  understood  in  this  unpre- 
pared and  hurried  statement  of  some  reasons  which  press  on  my  associates  and 
myself  to  urge  forward  this  trial.  You  will  see  their  force  and  the  arguments 
which  should  accompany  them  much  better  than  I  can  state  them.  If  I  have 
brought  your  minds — perhaps  a  little  swerved  by  pity  and  clemency  for  so  great 
an  accused — again  to  their  true  poise  of  judgment  upou  the  question  of  tiie 
necessity  for  this  country  that  justice  shall  speedily  be  done  upon  the  accused, 
I  have  succeeded  in  all  I  could  hope.  If  we  are  mistaken  in  all  our  accusations 
and  the  respondent  is  the  great  and  good  man  he  ought  to  be,  and  he  shall  go 
free,  be  it  so  ;  the  counti,y  will  have  quiet  then.  If  you  come  to  the  other  deter- 
mination which  we  present,  and  demand  you  shall  do  if  it  be  proved,  then  be 
that  so,  and  the  country  will  have  quiet.  But  upon  this  so  great  trial,  I  pray  let 
US  not  belittle  ourselves  with  the  analogies  of  the  common-law  courts,  or  the 
equity  courts,  or  the  criminal  courts,  because  nothing  is  so  dangerous  to  mislead 
us.  Let  us  deal  with  this  matter  as  one  wherein  the  lile  of  the  nation  hangs 
trembling  in  the  scale;  where  the  rights  of  the  nation  are  put  in  the  balance, 
and  a  trial  is  to  be  had  upon  the  greatest  question  that  ever  yet  engaged  the 
attention  of  any  body,  however  learned  or  however  wise,  sitting  in  judgment. 

Mr.  Nklsun.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  and  gentlemen  of  the  Senate  :  I  have  en- 
tered this  chamber  as  one  of  the  c  mnselof  the  President,  profoundly  impressed 
with  the  idea  that  this  is  the  most  exalted  judicial  tribunal  now  upon  earth. 
I  have  endeavored,  in  coming  here,  to  divest  my  mind  of  the  idea  that  we  are  to 
engage  in  political  discussion,  and  to  feel  impi-essed  with  the  thought  that  we 
appear  before  a  tribunal,  the  members  of  which  are  sworn  as  judges,  to  try  the 
great  questions  which  have  been  submitted  to  their  consideration,  not  as  mere 
party  questions,  but  as  the  grand  tribunal  of  the  nation,  disposed  to  dispense 
justice  ecjually  between  two  of  the  greatest  powers,  if  I  may  so  express  myself, 
in  the  land.  I  have  conn;  here  under  the  impression  that  there  is  much  force  in 
the  observation  which  the  honorable  manager  made  in  regard  to  the  forms  of 
])roceeding  in  this  tribunal,  that  it  is  not  to  be  governed  by  the  iron  and  rigid 
ruh-8  of  law,  but  that,  seeking  to  attain  justice,  it  is  disposed  to  allow  the  largest 
liberty  in  the  progress  of  the  invef^tigation,  both  to  the  honorable  managers 
on  tlie  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  to  the  counsel  in  behalf  of 
thti  President  of  the  United  States. 

Impressed  with  the  idea  that  this  tribunal  will  discard  in  a  great  degree  those 
forms  and  ceremonies  which  arc  known  to  the  common  law ;  that  it  does  not 
stand  upou  demurrers ;  that  it  will  not  stand  particularly  upon  the  forms  of  evi- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  29 

deuce,  or  those  technical  rules  which  prevail  in  other  courts,  I  have  supposed 
that  there  was  nothing  improper  in  our  making  an  appeal  to  this  trilnmal  for  time 
to  answer  the  charges  which  have  been  preferred  against  the  President  of  tlie 
United  States;  and  that,  instead  of  that  being  denied,  much  more  liberality- 
would  be  extended  by  the  Senate  of  the  nation,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeach- 
ment, than  we  could  even  expect  upon  a  trial  in  one  of  the  courts  of  common 
law.  , 

It  is  not  my  purpose,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  to  enter  at  this  stage  into  a  discus- 
sion of  the  charges  which  are  preferred  here,  though  it  would  seem  to  be  invited 
by  one  or  two  of  the  observations  which  were  made  by  the  honorable  manager, 
[Mr  Butler.]  I  do  not  propose  at  this  sfcige  of  your  proceedings  to  enter  into 
any  discussion  of  them.  You  are  told,  however,  that  it  is  right  in  a  case  of  thia 
kind  to  proceed  with  railroad  speed ;  and  thati  in  consequence  of  the  great  im- 
provements which  have  been  made  in  the  country,  we  can  proceed  much  more 
rapidly  in  the  investigation  of  a  case  of  this  kind  than  such  a  case  could  be 
proceeded  with  a  few  years  ago.  Nevertheless,  the  charges  which  are  made 
here  are  charges  of  the  gravest  importance.  The  questions  which  Avill  have  to 
be  considered  by  this  honorable  body  are  questions  of  the  deepest  and  profound- 
est  interest.  They  are  questions  in  which  not  only  the  representatives  of  the 
people  are  concerned,  but  the  people  themselves  have  the  deepest  and  most  last- 
ing interest -in  the  result  of  this  investigation.  Questions  are  raised  here  in 
regard  to  differences  of  opinion  between  the  Executive  of  the  nation  and  the  hon- 
orable House  of  Representatives  as  to  their  constitutional  powei's,  and  as  to  the 
rights  which  they  respectively  claim.  These  are  questidhs  of  the  utmost  grav- 
ity, and  questions  which,  in  the  view  we  entertain  of  them,  should  receive  the 
most  deliberate  consideration  on  the  part  of  the  Senate. 

1  trust  that  I  shall  be  pardoned  by  the  Chief  Justice  and  the  senators  in 
making  an  allusion  to  a  statute  which  has  long  been  in  force  in  the  State  from' 
which  1  come:  I  only  do  it  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  brief  argument  by 
analogy  to  you  and  the  honoi-able  body  whom  I  am  addressing.  We  have  a 
statute  in  the  State  of  Tennessee,  which  has  long  been  in  force,  which  provides 
that  when  a  bill  of  indictment  is  found  against  an  individual,  and  he  thinks, 
owing  to  excitement  or  any  other  cause,  he  may  not  have  a  fair  trial  at  the  first 
term  of  the  court,  his  case  shall  be  continued  until  the  next  term.  The  mode 
of  proceeding  at  law — and  no  man,  I  presume,  in  the  United  States  is  more 
familiar  with  it  than  the  Chief  Justice  whom  I  have  the  honor  of  addressing 
on  this  occasion — is  not  a  mode  of  railroad  speed.  If  there  is  anything  under 
the  heavens  that  gives  to  judicial  proceedings  a  claim  to  the  consideration  and 
the  approbation  of  mankind,  it  is  the  fact  that  judges  and  courts  hasten  slowly 
in  the  investigation  of  cases  that  are  presented  to  them.  Nothing  is  done  or 
presumed  to  be  done  in  a  state  of  excitement.  Every  moment  is  allowed  for 
calm  and  mature  deliberation.  The  courts  are  in  the  habit  of  investigating  cases 
slowly,  carefully,  cautiously  ;  and  when  they  form  their  judgments  and  pro- 
nounce their  opinions,  and  those  opinions  are  published  to  the  world,  they  meet 
the  sanction  of  judicial  minds  and  legal  minds  everywhere,  and  they  meet  the 
approbation  and  the  confidence  of  the  people  before  whom  they  are  promul- 
gated. If  this  is  and  ever  has  been  one  of  the  proudest  characteristics,  if  I  may 
so  express  myself,  of  the  forms  of  judicial  proceedings  in  our  courts,  how  much 
more  in  an  exalted  and  honorable  body  like  this  ;  how  much  more  in  an  assem- 
bly composed  of  some  of  the  wisest  and  greatest  men  in  the  United  States, 
senators  revered  and  honored  by  their  countrymen,  senators  who  from  their  posi- 
tion are  presumed  to  be  free  from  reproach,  who  from  their  position  are  pre- 
sumed to  be  calm  in  their  deliberations  and  in  their  investigations — how  much 
more  in  such  a  body  as  this  ought  we  to  proceed  cautiously,  and  ought  every 
opportunity  to  be  given  for  a  fair  investigation. 

Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  need  not  tell  you,  nor  need  I  tell  many  of  the  honorable 


30  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT 

senators  whom  T  adflress  on  this  occasion,  many  of  whom  are  lawyers,  many  of 
whom  have  been  clothed  in  times  past  with  the  judicial  ermine,  that  in  the  courts 
of  law  the  vilest  criminal  who  ever  was  arraigned  in  the  United  States  has  been 
given  time  for  preparation,  time  for  hearing.  The  Constitution  of  the  country 
secures  to  the  vilest  man  in^he  laud  the  right  not  only  to  be  heard  himself,  but 
to  be  heard  by  counsel ;  and  no  matter  how  great  his  crime,  no  ma4;ter  how  deep 
may  be  the  malignity  of  the  offence  with  which  he  is  charged,  he  is  tried 
according  to  the  forms  of  law  ;  he  is  allowed  to  have  counsel ;  continuances  are 
granted  to  him;  if  he  is  unable  to  obtain  justice,  time  is  given  to  him,  and  all 
manner  of  preparation  is  allowed  him. 

If  this  is  so  iu  courts  of  common  Jaw,  that  are  fettered  and  bound  by  the  iron 
rules  to  which  I  have  adverted,  liow  much  more  in  a  great  tribunal  like  this, 
that  does  not  follow  the  precedents  of  law,  but  that  is  aiming  and  seeking  alone 
to  attain  justice,  ought  we  to  be  allowed  ample  time  for  preparation  in  reference 
to  charges  of  the  nature  which  we  have  here !  Ho\v  much  more,  sir,  should 
such  time  be  given  us  ! 

We  are  told  that  the  President  acted  in  regard  to  one  of  the  matters  which  is 
charged  against  him  by  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  21st  of  February, 
and  that  by  the  4th  of  March — if  I  did  not  mistake  the  statement  of  the  honorable 
manager — the  House  of  Representatives  had  presented  this  accusation  against 
the  President  of  the  United  States  ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  President,  who  knew 
what  he  was  doing,  should  be  prepared  for  his  defence.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  is 
it  necessary  for  me  to  remind  you  and  honorable  senators  that  you  can  upon  a 
page  of  foolscap  pape!#prepare  a  bill  of  indictment  against  an  individual  which 
may  require  weeks  in  the  investigation?  Is  it  necessary  for  me  to  remind  this 
honorable  body  that  it  is  an  easy  thing  to  make  charges,  but  that  it  is  often  a 
laborious  and  difficult  thing  to  make  a  defence  against  those  accusations  ? 

Reasoning  from  the  analogy  furnished  by  such  proceedings  at  law,  I  earnestly 
maintain  before  this  honorable  body  that  suitable  time  should  be  given  us  to 
answer  the  charges  which  are  made  here.  A  large  number  of  these  charges — 
those  of  them  connected  with  the  President's  action  iu  reference  to  the  Secretary 
of  War — involve  questions  of  the  deepest  importance.  They  involve  au  inquiry 
running  back  to  the  very  foundation  of  the  government ;  they  involve  an  exam- 
ination of  the  precedents  which  have  been  set  by  different  administrations ; 
they  involve,  in  short,  the  most  extensive  range  of  inquiry.  The  two  last 
charges  that  were  presented  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  if  I  may  be  par- 
doned for  using  the  expression  in  the  view  which  I  entertain  of  them,  open 
Pandora's  box,  and  will  cause  au  investigation  as  to  the  great  differences  of 
opinion  which  have  existed  between  the  President  and  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, an  inquiry  which,  so  far  as  I  can  perceive,  will  be  almost  interminable 
in  its  character. 

Now,  what  do  we  ask  for  the  President  of  the  United  States?  The  honor- 
able manager  corrected  hinistjlf  in  the  expression  that  he  was  a  criminal.  What 
do  we  ask  in  behalf  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  highest  officer  in 
this  land  1  Why,  sir,  we  ask  simply  that  he  shall  be  allowed  time  for  his 
defence.  And  upon  whose  judgment  is  he  to  rely  in  regard  to  that?  He  must, 
iu  great  part,  rely  upon  the  judgment  of  his  counsel,  those  to  whom  he  Ins 
intrusted  his  defence.  We,  upon  our  professional  responsibility,  have  asserted, 
in  the  presence  of  this  Senate,  in  the  face  of  the  nation  and  of  the  whole 
world,  that  we  believe  it  will  require  the  number  of  days  to  prepare  the  Presi- 
deut's  answer  which  we  stated  to  the  Senate  in  the  paper  which  we  submitted 
to  the  Senate.  Such  is  still  our  opinion.  And  when  these  grave  charges  are 
presented  are  they  to  be  rushed  through  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  judicial  tribunal, 
in  hot  haste  and  with  railroad  speed,  without  giving  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  the  opportunity  to  an.-wer  them,  that  same  opportunity  which 
you  would  give  to  the  meanest  criminal  that  ever  was  arraigned  before  the  bar  of 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  31 

justice  in  any  tribunal  in  tlu3  or  in  tlic  country  from  which  wc  borrowed  our 
law? 

I  cannot  believe,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  that  honorable  senators  will  hesitate  for 
one  moment  in  granting  us  all  the  time  that  may  be  necessary  to  prepare  our 
defence,  and  that  may  be  necessary  to  enable  them  to  decide  as  judges  care- 
fully, deliberately,  conscientiously,  and  with  a  view  of  their  accountability,  not 
only  to  their  constituents,  but  their  accountability  to  posterity  who  are  to  come 
after  ns,  for  the  names  of  American  senators  are  dear  not  only  to  those  who 
sent  them  here,  but  they  are  names  which  are  to  live  after  the  scenes  of  to-day 
shall  have  passed  away.  1  have  no  doubt  that  honorable  senators,  injustice  to 
themselves  and  injustice  to  the  great  land  which  they  represent,  will  endeavor 
to  conduct  this  investigation  in  a  manner  that  will  stamp  the  impress  of  honor 
and  justice  upon  them  and  upon  their  pi'oceedings,  not  only  now,  but  in  all  time 
to  come,  when  they  shall  be  cited  after  you,  and  I,  and  all  of  us,  shall  have 
passed  away  from  the  stage  of  human  action. 

Mr.  Chief  Justice,  this  is  an  exalted  tribunal.  I  say  it  in  no  spirit  of  com- 
pliment. I  say  it  because  I  feel  it.  I  feel  that  this  is  the  most  exalted  tribunal 
that  can  be  convened  under  the  sun,  a  tribunal  of  senators,  honorable  members, 
"who  are  sent  here  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  one  of  the  gravest  and  greatest 
accusations  that  ever  was  made  in  the  land.  And  I  may  say,  in  answer  to  an 
observation  of  the  honorable  manager  on  the  other  side,  that  I,  for  one,  as  an 
American  citizen,  feel  proud  that  we  are  assembled  here  to-day,  and  assembled 
•under  the  circumstances  which  have  brought  us  together.  It  is  one  of  the  first 
instances  in  the  history  of  the  world  in  which  the  ruler  of  a  people  has  been 
presented  by  a  portion  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  for  trial  before 
another  branch  of  the  law-making  power  sitting  as  a  judicial  tribunal.  While 
that  is  so  it  is  equally  true  that  on  the  other  hand  the  President,  through  his 
counsel,  comes  here  and  submits  himself  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  court,  sub- 
mits himself  calmly,  peaceably,  and  with  a  confident  reliance  on  the  justice  of 
the  honorable  Senate  who  are  to  hear  his  cause. 

Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  sincerely  hope  that  the  resolution  which  has  been  offered 
■will  meet  the  approbation  of  the  honorable  Senate.  I  hope  that  time  will  be 
given  us,  and  that  this  proceeding,  which  in  all  time  to  come  will  be  quoted  as 
a  precedent  for  others,  will  be  conducted  with  that  gravity,  that  dignity,  that 
decorum  which  are  fit  and  becoming  in  the  representatives  of  a  free  and  a  great 
people. 

Mr,  CoNKLiNG.  I  wish  to  submit  an  amendment  to  the  proposition  pending 
in  the  nature  of  a  substitute : 

Ordered,  That,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Senate  for  cause  shown,  tlie  trial  of  the 
pending  impeachment  shall  proceed  immediately  after  replication  shall  be  tiled 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  amendment  submitted  by  the  senator  from  New 
York  does  not  appear  to  the  Chair  to  be  in  order  at  present.  The  motion  of 
the  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Sherman]  is  that  the  Senate  adopt  the  following 
order  : 

Ordered,  That  the  trial  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  shall  proceed  on  the  Gth  day  of 
April  next. 

The  senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Wilson]  moves  to  amend  it  by  striking 
out  the  word  "sixth"  and  inserting  "first."     That  is  the  present  motion. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  propose  to  modify  my  amendment  by  sayiue:  Monday,  the 
30rh  of  March.  ^      ^    S  J'. 

Mr.  CoNKLiitG.  Does  the  Chair  decide  that  my  proposition   is  not  in  order  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  does  not  conceive  it  to  be  in  order  at  present. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  Then  I  beg  to  modify  in  this  way  :  I  move  to  amend  the 
amendment  of  the  senator  from  IMassachusetts  by  striking  out  the  date  which 
he  inserts,  whatever  that  date  may  be,  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  words, 
"  immediately  after  replication  filed,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Senate." 


32  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Tlio  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  conceives  that  the  amendment  offered  bj  the 
senator  from  New  York  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  WiLSOi\.  For  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  motion  made  by  the  senator 
from  New  York  before  the  body,  I  withdraw  my  amendment,  so  that  his  amend- 
ment will  be  in  order. 

Mr.  CoNKLi.VG.  Then  I  offer  my  original  proposition  as  a  substitute  for  the 
proposition  of  the  senator  from  Ohio. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  amendment  of  the  senator  from  New  York  will  be 
read. 

The  Chief  Clerk.  The  amendment  is  to  strike  out  all  after  the  word 
"ordered,"  in  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Sherman,  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof; 

That,  imless  otlierwise  ordered  by  the  Senate  for  cause  shown,  the  trial  of  the  pending  im- 
peachment shall  proceed  immediately  after  replication  shall  be  filed. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  I  am  instructed  by  the  managers  to  say 
that  the  proposition  just  suggested  by  the  honorable  senator  from  New  York 
[Mr.  Conklingl  is  entirely  sati.-^factory  to  the  managers  for  the  House,  and  to 
say  further  to  the  Senate  that  we  believe  it  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  precedents 
in  this  country.  The  Senate  will  doubtless  remember  that  on  the  trial  of  Jus- 
tice Chase,  when  a  day  was  fixed  for  an  answer,  upon  his  own  petition,  verified 
by  his  atfidavit,  the  Senate  adopted  an  order  which  was  substantially  the  order 
as  suggested  by  the  amendment  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  New  York.  I 
beg  leave  to  read  that  order  in  the  hearing  of  the  Senate  : 

Ordered,  That  the  4th  day  of  February  next  shall  be  the  day  for  receiving  the  answer 
and  proceeding  with  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  against  Samuel  Chase. 

If  nothing  further  had  been  said  touching  the  original  proposition  we  would 
have  been  content  and  satisfied  to  leave  this  question  without  further  remark  to 
the  decision  of  the  Senate  ;  but  in  view  of  what  has  been  said  by  the  coiinsel  for  the 
accused  we  beg  leave  to  respond  that  we  are  chargeable  with  no  indi  cent  haste 
when  we  ask  that  no  unnecessary  delay  shall  interpose  between  the  people  and 
the  trial  of  a  man  who  is  charged  with  Im'ing  violated  the  greatest  trusts  ever 
committed  to  a  single  person  ;  trusts  that  involve  the  highest  interests  of  the 
whole  people  ;  trusts  that  involve  the  peace  of  the  whole  country  ;  trusts  that 
involve  in  some  sense  the  success  of  this  last  great  experiment  of  representative 
government  upon  the  earth. 

We  may  be  pardoned,  further,  sir,  for  saying  that  it  strikes  us  somewhat  with 
surprise,  without  intending  the  slightest  possible  disrespect  to  any  member  of 
this  body,  that  any  proposition  should  be  entertained  for  the  continuance  of  a 
trial  like  this,  when  no  formal  application  has  been  made  by  the  accused  him- 
self. To  be  sure,  a  molion  was  interposed  here  to-day  in  the  face  of  the  written 
rule,  order,  and  law  of  this  body,  for  leave  to  file  an  answer  at  the  end  of  forty 
days.  The  Senate  has  disposed  of  that  motion,  and  in  a  manner,  we  venture  to 
pay,  satisfactory  to  the  whole  country,  as  it  is  certainly  satisfactory  to  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  people  at  this  bar.  Now,  sir,  that  being  disposed  of,  the 
Senate  having  deterniiued  the  day  on  which  answer  shall  be  filed,  we  submit, 
with  all  respect  to  the  Senate,  that  it  is  but  just  to  the  people  of  this  country 
that  we  shall  await  the  incoming  of  the  answer  and  the  replication  tliereto  by 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  and  then  see  and  know  what  colorable  excuse 
can  be  oft'ered,  either  by  the  accused  President  in  his  own  person  or  through  his 
representatives,  why  tliis  trial  should  be  delayed  a  single  hour. 

If  he  be  innocent  of  the  grave  accusations  prepared  against  him,  the  truth  will 
Boon  be  ascertained  by  this  enlightened  body  ;  dnd  he  has  the  right,  if  the  fact 
so  appear,  to  a  speedy  deliverance,  and  the  country  a  right  to  a  speedy  deter- 
mination of  this  important  queslion.  If,  oa  the  other  hand,  he  be  guilty  of 
these  giave  and  serious  charges,  what  man  is  there  within  this  body  or  outside 
of  this  body  ready  to  say  that  he  should  oue  day  or  hour  longer  disgrace  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  33 

high  position  which  has  been  held  hitherto  by  some  of  the  noblest  and  mos^t 
illustrious  of  the  land  ? 

We  think  that  the  executive  power  of  this  nation  can  only  be  reposed  in  the 
hands  of  men  who  are  faithful  to  tluir  great  trust.  The  people  so  think.  They 
have  made  tliat  issue  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  at  this  bjir ;  and 
while  we  demand  that  there  shall  be  no  indecent  haste,  we,  too,  demand  'in  the; 
name  of  all  the  people,  most  respectfully,  that  there  shall  be  no  uiniecessHiy 
delay,  and  no  delay  at  all  until  good  cause  is  shown  for  delay  in  the  mode  and 
manner  hitherto  observed  in  proceedings  of  this  sort. 

Mr.  Johnson.  iMr.  President,  I  ask  that  the  resolution  offered  by  the  honor- 
able member  from  Ohio  shall  be  read.     I  did  not  hear  it  distinctly. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  will  be  re])orted.  . 

The  Chief  Clekk.  The  order  as  submitted  by  Mr.  Sherman  is  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  the  trial  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  shall  proceed  on  the  6th  day  of 
April  next. 

The  senator  from  New  York  [Mr.  Conkling]  moves  to  amend  by  striking  out 
all  after  the  word  "  ordered,"  and  inserting  : 

That,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Senate  for  cause  shown,  the  trial  of  the  pending  ini- 
peachuieut  shall  proceed  immediately  after  replication  shall  be  filed. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  President,  I  rise  for  information.  Is  there  any  period 
within  which  the  replication  is  to  be  filed  ?  There  is  nothing  on  the  face  of  that 
order  limiting  the  time  within  which  the  replication  may  be  filed.  If  the 
managers  propose  to  make  that  a  part  of  the  order  to  file  the  replication  on  the 
day  the  answer  may  come  in,  or  on  any  specific  day  after  the  coming  in  of  the 
answer,  it  would  not,  perhaps,  be  liable  to  objection  ;  but  the  accused  may  well 
be  in  ignorance  of  the  time  when  the  trial  will  begin  under  the  order  as  it  stands. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Will  the  honorable  senator  allow  me  to  suggest  to 
him  that  we  can  only  file  the  replication  with  the  consent  and  after  consultation 
with  the  House  of  Representatives  ;  and  therefore  the  answer  to  his  suggestion 
is  that  as  soon  as  answer  be  made  here  according  to  the  usage  and  practice  ia 
cases  of  this  sort  we  will  respectfully  demand  a  copy  of  the  answer  that  we 
may  lay  it  before  the  house  and  report  to  this  body  as  soon  as  the  house  will 
order  us  its  replication.  1  have  no  doubt  it  will  be  done  within  one  or  two  days 
after  the  answer  is  filed. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  I  meant — 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  Reluctant  as  I  am  to  make  it, 
I  ask  for  the  enforcement  of  the  eighteenth  and  twenty-third  rules. 

Tlie  Chief  Justk'B.  No  debate  can  be  had.  The  Chair  understood  the 
senator  from  Maryland  as  siioply  asking  for  an  explanation  from  the  managers. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  is  the  rule,  Mr.  President  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  rule. 

Mr.  Johnson,  The  honorable  member  from  New  York  is  mistaken  in  sup- 
posing that  I  rose  to  deb-ate  the  question.  I  only  rose  for  the  purpose  of 
inquiring  what  the  question  was.     I  suppose  that  is  allowable. 

rhe  Chief  .Justice.  Is  the  Senate  ready  for  the  question  on  the  substitute 
proposed  by  the  senator  from  New  York  1 

Mr.  Drake.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  ;  and  being  taken  resulted— yeas  40,  nays 
10,  as  follows : 

Yeas— Messrs.  Anthony,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Henderson, 
Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Jlorrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Patterson  of 
New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer, 
Tipton,  Tnnnbull,  Van  Winkle,  Wiliey,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 40 

Nays— Messrs.  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Pat- 
terson of  Tennessee,  Saulsbury,  and  Yickers — 10. 

Ahskkt — Messrs.  Cragin,  Duolittle,  Norton,  and  Wade — 4. 

3  I  P 


34  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PEESIDENT. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  question  recurs  on  the  order  as  amended.  The 
clerk  will  report  the  order. 

The  chief  clerk  read  it,  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Senate  for  cause  shoAvn,  the  trial  of  the 
peudiiig  iQipeachment  shall  proceed  inmiedlately  after  replication  shall  be  filed. 

The  order  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Howard.  If  there  he  no  motion  for  the  court  on  behalf  of  the  honorable 
managers  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  or  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  for  the 
acciised,  I  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  on  the  present  impeachment  adjourn  to 
the  23d  day  of  the  preserit  mouth,  at  one  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  I  send  an 
order  to  the  Chair  for  that  purpose.  My  motion  is  made  subject  to  any  action 
the  managers  may  see  fit  to  lay  before  us,  or  the  counsel  for  the  accused.  I 
will  not  press  it  if  they  have  anything  to  propose. 

The  Chief  Justice,  Have  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives anything  to  propose  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bi.vgham.  Nothing  further  at  present. 

The  Chief  Justice,  Have  the  counsel  for  the  accused  anything  to  propose  i 

Mr.  CuKTis.  Notliing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  the  motion  is  to  adjourn  the  Senate  sitting 
for  the  trial  of  this  impeachment  until  the  23d  of  March. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice  thereupon  vacated  the  chair. 


Monday,  March  23,  1S68. 

At  1  o'clock  p.  m.  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Sen- 
ate chamber,  escorted  by  Mr.  Pomeroy,  the  chairman  of  the  Senate  committee 
heretofore  appointed  for  that  purpose,  and  took  the  chair. 

The  Chikf  Justicu.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  open  tlic  court  by  procla- 
mation. 

The  Sergeant-at-arms.  Hear  ye,  hear  ye,  hear  ye:  all  persons  are  com- 
manded to  keep  silence  while  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  sitting  for  the 
trial  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  by  the  House  of  Representatives 
against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  at  the  door,  and  their  presence  was^announced  by  the  Sergeant- 
at-arms. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  managers  will  take  the  seats  assigned  to  tliera  by 
the  Senate. 

'1  he  managers  accordingly  took  the  seats  provided  for  them  in  the  area  of 
the  Senate  to  the  left  of  the  Presidiug  Officer. 

The  counsel  for  the  President,  Hon.  Henry  Stanbery,  of  Kentucky  ;  Hon. 
B.  R.  Curtis,  of  Massachusetts;  Hon.  Thomas  A.  R.  Nelson,  of  Tennessee; 
William  M.  Evarts,  Esq.,  of  New  York,  and  Hon.  William  S.  Giocsbeck,  of 
Ohio,  appeared  and  tuok  the  scats  assigned  to  them  on  the  right  of  the  Chair. 

The  Sergeant-at-arms  announced  the  presence  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives ;  and  the  Committee  of  the;  Whole  House,  headed  by  Mi-.  E.  B.  Wash- 
burne,  of  Illinois,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  the  Clerk 
of  the  House,  entered  the  chamber,  and  the  members  were  conducted  to  the 
Beats  assigned  them. 

The  Secretary  called  the  name  of  Mr.  Doolittle,  who  had  not  heretofore 
been  sworn,  and  the  oath  prescribed  by  the  rules  was  administered  to  him  by 
the  Chief  Justice. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  6b 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  tbe  minutes  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  last  sitting. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  Friday,  March  13,  of 
the  Senate  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  on  articles  of  impeachment. 

On  the  journal  of  those  proceedings  occur  the  following  entries  as  to  the 
proceedings  of  the  Senate  on  that  occasion,  when  it  had  retired  for  deliberation  : 

The  Seuate,  with  tbe  Chief  Justice,  havings  retired  to  their  conference  chamber,  pro- 
ceeded to  consider  tbe  motion  presented  by  Mr  Edmunds  :  and, 

After  debate, 

On  motion  by  Mr.  Drake  to  amend  the  motion  submitted  by  Mr.  Edmunds,  by  striking 
ont  all  after  the  word  "  ordered,"  and  in  lieu  thereof  inserting  : 

That  the  respondent  file  answer  to  the  articles  of  impeachment  on  or  before  Friday 
the  '20th  day  of  JSIarch,  instant. 

It  was  determined  in  the  aiiirmative — ^yeas  28,  nays  20. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  Drake, 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  desired  by  one-fifth  of  the  senators  present. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  afiirmative  are — 

Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Drake,  Ferry, 
Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New 
Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Trumbull,  Willey, 
Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  are — 

Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Edmunds,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Fre- 
linghu^-sen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Norton, 
Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Saulsbury,  Van  Winkle,  and  Vickers. 

So  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Drake  to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Edmunds  was  agreed  to. 

On  the  question  to  agree  to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Edmunds,  as  amended, 

After  debate, 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Trumbull,  that  the  Senate  reconsider  its  vote  agreeing  to  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  Mr.  Drake  to  tbe  motion  of  Mr.  Edmunds, 

It  was  determined  in  the  affirmative — yeas  27,  uays  23. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Drake, 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  desired  by  (tne-fifth  of  the  senators  present, 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  are — 

Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cattell,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Edmunds,  Fes- 
sfmden.  Fowler,  Frelinghuj^sen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  MeCreery,  Mor- 
rill of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague, 
Trumbull.  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  are — 

Messrs.  Cameron,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Drake,  Ferry,  Harlan,  Howard, 
Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey, 
Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates. 

So  the  Senate  reconsidered  its  vote  agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Drake  to  the  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  Edmunds ;  and, 

The  question  recuiring  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Drake, 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Trumbull  to  amend  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Drake,  by  striking  out 
the  words  "Friday,  the  20th,"  and  inserting  the  words  "Monday,  the  23d," 

It  was  determined  in  the  affirmative;  and, 

On  the  question  to  agree  to  the  amendment,  as  amended  on  tbe  motion  of  Mr.  Trumbull, 

It  wa.s  deteruiined  in  the  affirmative. 

The  question  again  recurring  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Edmunds,  as  amended  on  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Drake,  as  amended  by  Mr.  Trumbull  in  the  following  words  : 

"  Ordered,  That  the  respondent  file  answer  to  the  articles  of  impeachment  on  or  before 
Monday,  the  23d  day  of  March  instant," 

It  was  determined  in  the  affirmative. 

Thereupon, 

The  Senate  retursed  to  its  chamber. 

Mr.  Davi«.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  rise  to  make  the  same  question  to  the  Court 
which  I  made  in  the  Senate,  and  I  think  that  now  is  the  appropriate  time,  before 
the  Couit  has  decided  to  take  up  the  case.  I  therefore  submit  to  the  Court  a 
motion  in  writing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  motion. 


36  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows: 

Mr.  Davis,  a  member  of  tlie  Senate  aud  of  tho  Court  of  Impeachment,  from  the  State  of 
Kentucky,  moves  the  Court  to  make  this  order: 

Tlie  Constitution  iiaving  vested  the  Senate  with  the  sole  power  to  try  tlie  articles  of  im- 
peachment of  the  President  of  the  United  States  preferred  by  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  havinp:  also  declared  that  "the  Senate  of  tlie  United  States  shall  be  conii)<)sed  of  t\vo 
senators  from  each  State  chosen  by  the  legislatures  thereof,'!  and  the  States  of  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  aud 
Texas  having,  each  by  its  legislature,  chosen  two  senators  who  have  l^eeu  and  continue  to 
be  excluded  by  the  Senate  from  their  seats  respectively,  without  any  judgment  by  tho  Senate 
against  them  personally  and  individually  on  the  points  of  their  elections,  returns,  and  quali- 
fications, it  is 

Ordered,  That  a  Court  of  Impeachment  for  the  trial  of  the  President  cannot  be  legally  and 
constitutionally  formed  while  the  senators  from  the  States  aforesaid  are  thus  excluded  from 
the  Senate ;  and  this  case  is  continued  until  the  senators  from  these  States  are  permitted  to 
take  their  seats  in  the  Senate,  subject  to  all  constitutional  exceptions  to  their  elections, 
returns,  aud  (jualifications  severally. 

Mr.  Howard.  Mr.  President 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  does  not  admit  of  debate. 

Mr.  Howard.  Mr.  President,  I  object  to  the  receiving  of  tlie  paper  as  not  in 
order. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  submit  a  motion,  which  will  cover 
the  case,  perhaps.  I  move  that  the  paper  be  not  received,  upon  which  I  call  for 
tbe  yeas  aud  nays. 

Mr.  Howe.  Mr.  President,  I  rise  to  submit  a  question  o\  order. 

Tbe  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Wisconi^in. 

Mr.  Howe.  I  submit  if  the  motion  offered  by  the  senator  from  Kentucky  be 
in  order. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  motion  comes  before  the  Senate  in  the  shape  of  an 
order  submitted  by  a  member  of  the  Senate  aud  of  the  Court  of  Impeachment. 
The  twenty-third  rule  requires  that  "all  the  orders  and  decisions  shall  be  made 
and  had  by  yeas  and  niiys,  which  shall  be  entered  on  the  record,  and  without 
debate,  subject,  however,  to  the  operation  of  rule  seven."  The  seventh  rule 
requires  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  to  "submit  to  the  Senate,  without  a 
division,  all  questions  of  evidence  and  incidental  questions;  but  the  same  shall, 
on  the  demand  of  one-fiflh  of  the  members  present,  be  decided  by  yeas  and  nays." 
This  rule  applies  to  every  order  submitted  by  a  member  of  the  Senate  under  the 
twenty-third  rule.     The  Chair  rules  that  the  order  is  in  order. 

Mr.  Co.WESS.  Mr.  President 

The  Chief  Justice.  No  debate  is  allowed. 

Mr.  Co.\i\ESS    Is  the  motion  submitted  by  me  in  order  in  connection  with  it  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  No,  sir. 

h^everal  Senators.  Let  us  have  a  square  vote. 

Other  Senators.  Let  us  have  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  order  projjosed. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  2,  nays 
49  ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Davis  and  McCreery — 2. 

Nay.s — Messrs.  Anthony,  Buekalcw,  Cameron,  Cattell.  Chandler,  Cole,  Cimkling,  Connoss. 
Corbett,  Cragin,  IMxon,  Doolittle,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fes.sendeu,  Fowler,  Freliug- 
huysen.  Grimes,  Harlan,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Howard,  Howe,  Johnson,  Morgan,  Mor- 
rill of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire, 
Patterson  of  Teiuiessee,  Ponunoy,  Ramsey,  l^'oss,  Slierman,  Sjirague,  Stewart,  Sumner, 
Thayer,  Tipton,  TrundjuU,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  Williauis,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 4U. 

AnsF.NT — Messrs.  Bayard,  Saulsbury,  and  Wade — 3. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  the  motion  to  adopt  the  order  of  the  senator  from 
Kentucky,  the  yeas  are  2  and  the  nays  49.     The  motion  is  lost. 

Are  the  counsel  for  the  President  ready  to  lile  their  answer? 

Mr,  Stanhekv.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  in  obedience  to  the  order  of  the  honora- 
ble court,  made  at  the  last  session,  that  the  answer  of  the  President  should  be 
filed  to-day,  we  have  it  ready.     The  coun-iel,  abandoning  all  other  engagements, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  37 

some  of  lis  quitting  our  courts,  our  cases,  and  o\ir  clients,  have  devoted  every 
Lour  to  the  performance  of  this  duty.  The  hibor  has  been  incessant  and 
exhaustive.  We  have  devoted,  as  I  say,  not  only  every  hour  ordinarily  devoted 
to  labor,  but  many  required  for  necessary  rest  and  i-ecreation  have  been  con- 
sumed in  this  work.  It  is  a  matter,  jMr.  Chief  Justice,  of  profound  regret  tons 
that  the  honorable  court  did  not  allow  us  more  time.  Nevertheless  we  hope  that 
the  answer  will  be  found  in  all  i-espccts  sufHcient  within  the  law.  Such  as  it  is, 
we  are  now  ready  to  read  and  tile  it. 

The  Cfhkf  Justice.  The  counsel  will  read  the  answer  of  the  President. 

Mr.  Cl'K'i'ls  proceeded  to  read  the  answer  to  the  close  of  that  portion  relative 
to  the  firt^t  article  of  impeachment. 

Mr.  Stanbery  read  that  portion  of  the  answer  beginning  with  the  reply  to 
the  second  article  to  the  close  of  the  response  to  the  ninth  article. 

Mr.  EvARTS  read  the  residue  of  the  answer. 

The  answer  is  as  follows  : 

Senate  of  the  United  States,  sitting  as  a  Court  of  Impeachment  Jar  the  trial  of 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the    United  States. 

The  answer  of  the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  to 
the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  against  him  by  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives of  the  United  States. 

ANSWEK   TO    ARTICLE  I. 

For  answer  to  the  first  article  he  says :  That  Edwin  M.  Stanton  was  appointed 
Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  cm  the  15th  day  of  January,  A.  D.  18G2, 
by  Abraham  Lincoln,  then  President  of  the  United  States,  during  the  first  term 
of  his  presidency,  and  was  commissioned,  according  to  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  to  hold  the  said  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President ; 
that  the  ofiice  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  was  created  by  an  act  of 
the  first  Congress  in  its  first  session,  passed  on  the  7th  day  of  August,  A.  D. 
1789,  and  in  and  by  that  act  it  was  provided  and  enacted  that  the  said  Secre- 
tary for  the  Department  of  War  shall  perform  and  execute  such  duties  as  shall 
from  time  to  time  be  enjoined  on  and  intrusted  to  him  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  agreeably  to  the  Constitution,  relative  to  the  subjects  within  the 
scope  of  said  department ;  and  furthermore,  that  the  said  Secretary  shall  con- 
duct the  business  of  the  said  department  in  such  a  manner  as  the  President  of 
the  United  States  shall,  from  time  to  time,  order  and  instruct. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says  that  by  force  of  the  act  afore- 
said and  by  reason  of  his  appointment  albresaid  the  said  Stanton  became  the 
principal  ofiicer  in  one  of  the  executive  departments  of  the  government  within 
tiie  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  second  section  of  the  second  article  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  according  to  the  true  intent  and  mean- 
ing of  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and.  in  accord- 
ance with  the  settled  and  uniform  practice  of  each  and  every  President  of  the 
United  States,  the  said  Stanton  then  became,  and  so  long  as  he  should  continue 
to  hold  the  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  must  continue  to 
be,  one  of  the  advisers  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  the 
person  intrusted  to  act  for  and  represent  the  President  in  matters  enjoined  upon 
him  or  intrusted  to  him  by  the  President  touching  the  department  aforesaid,  and 
and  for  whose  conduct  in  such  capacity,  subordinate  to  the  President,  the  Pre.-^i- 
deut  is,  by  the  Constitution   and  laws  of  the  United  States,  made  responsible. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says  he  succeeded  to  the  office  of 
President  of  the  United  States  upon,  and  by  reason  of,  the  death  of  Abraham 
Lincoln,  then  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  15th  day  of  April,  18G5, 
and  the    said  Stanton  was   then  holding  the  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the 


38  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Department  of  War  under  and  by  reason  of  the  appointment  and  commission 
aforesaid  ;  and,  not  having  been  removed  from  the  said  office  by  this  respondent, 
the  said  Stanton  continned  to  hold  the  same  under  the  appointment  and  commis- 
sion aforesaid,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  until  the  time  hereinafter  par- 
ticularly mentioned ;  and  at  no  time  received  any  appointment  or  commission 
save  as  above  detailed. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says  that  on  and  prior  to  the  5th  day 
of  August,  A.  D.  1867,  this  respondent,  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
responsible  for  the  conduct  of  the  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  and 
having  the  constitutional  right  to  resort  to  and  rely  upon  the  person  holding 
that  office  for  advice  concerning  the  great  and  difficult  public  duties  enjoined  on 
the  President  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  became  satis- 
iied  that  he  could  not  allow  the  said  Stanton  to  continue  to  hold  the  office  of 
Secretary  lor  the  Department  of  War  without  hazard  of  the  public  interest  ; 
that  the  relations  between  the  said  Stanton  and  the  President  no  longer  permit- 
ted the  President  to  resort  to  him  for  advice,  or  to  be,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
President,  safely  responsible  for  his  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  the  Department  of 
War,  as  by  law  required,  in  accordance  with  the  orders  and  instructions  of  the 
President ;  and  thereupon,  by  force  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States,  which  devolve  on  the  President  the  power  and  the  duty  to  control  the 
conduct  of  the  business  of  that  executive  department  of  the  goverumenr,  and  by 
reason  of  the  constitutional  duty  of  the  President  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be 
faithfully  executed,  this  respondent  did  necessarily  consider  and  did  determine 
that  the  said  Stanton  ought  no  longer  to  hold  the  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the 
Department  of  War.  And  this  respondent,  by  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority 
vested  in  him  as  President  of  the  United  States,  by  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  to  give  effect  to  such  his  decision  and  determination,  did, 
on  the  5th  day  of  August,  A.  D.'  1867,  address  to  the  said  Stanton  a  note,  of 
which  the  following  is  a  true  copy  : 

Sir  :  Piiblic  considerations  of  a  high  character  coustrain  me  to  say  that  your  resignation 
as  Secretary  of  War  will  be  accepted. 

To  which  note  the  said  Stanton  made  the  following  reply  : 

Waii  Dkpartaiknt,  Wusldngtun,  August  5,  1S67. 
SiU:  Your  note  of  this  day  has  been  received,  stating  that  "public  considerations  of  a 
liigh  character  constrain  you"  to  say  "that  my  resignation  as  Secretary  of  War  will  be 
accepted." 

In  rcjily  I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  public  considerations  of  a  high  character,  which 
alone  have  induced  me  to  contiiare  at  tlie  head  of  tliis  department,  constrain  me  not  to  resign 
the  ofiice  of  Secretary  of  War  before  the  next  meeting  of  Congress. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

EDWIN  M.  STANTON. 

This  respondent,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  was  thereon  of  opinion 
that,  having  regard  to  tht;,  necessary  official  relations  and  duties  of  the  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  according  to 
the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  having  regard  to  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  President  for  the  conduct  of  the  said  Secretary,  and  having 
regard  to  the  permanent  executive  authority  of  the  office  which  the  respondent 
holds  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  it  was  impossilde, 
consistently  with  the  public  interests,  to  allow  the  said  Stanton  to  continue  to 
hold  the  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  D(^partment  of  War  ;  and  it  then  became 
the  official  duty  of  the  respond(;nt,  as  I'rcsident  of  the  United  States,  to  consider 
and  decide  what  act  or  acts  should  and  might  lawfully  be  done  by  him,  as  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States,  to  cause  the  said  Stanton  to  surrender  the  said  office. 

This  resj)ondent  was  informed  and  verily  believed  that  it  was  practically 
settled  by  the  hist  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  had  been  so  considered 
and,  uniforinly  and  in  great  numbers  of  instances,  acted  on  by  each  Congress 
and  President  of  the  United  States,  in  succession,  from  President  Washington 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  39 

to,  and  including,  President  Lincoln,  and  from  the  first  Congress  to  the  thirty- 
ninth  Congress,  that  tlie  Constitution  of  the  United  States  conferred  on  the 
President,  as  part  of  the  executive  power  and  as  one  of  the  necessary  means 
and  instruments  of  performing  the  executive  duty  expressly  imposed  on  him  by 
the  Constitution  of  taking  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  the  power 
at  any  and  all  times  of  removing  from  office  all  executive  officers  for  cause  to 
be  judged  of  by  the  President  alone.  This  responde\it  had,  in  pursuance  of 
the  Constitution,  required  the  opinion  of  each  principal  officer  of  the  executive 
departments  upon  this  question  of  constitutional  executive  power  and  duty,  and 
had  been  advised  by  each  of  them,  including  the  said  Stanton,  Secretary  for 
the  Department  of  War,  that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  this 
power  was  lodged  by  the  Constitution  in  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  that,  consequently,  it  could  be  lawfully  exercised  by  him,  and  the  Congress 
could  not  deprive  him  thereof:  and  this  respondent,  in  his  capacity  of  President 
of  the  United  States,  and  because  in  that  capacity  he  was  both  enabled  and 
bound  to  use  his  best  judgment  upon  this  question,  did,  in  good  faith  and  with 
an  earnest  desire  to  arrive  at  the  truth,  come  to  the  conclusion  and  opinion,  and 
did  make  the  same  known  to  the  honorable  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  by 
a  message  dated  on  the  2d  day  of  March,  1S67,  (a  true  copy  whereof  is  here- 
unto annexed  and  marked  A,)  that  the  power  last  mentioned  was  conferred  and 
the  duty  of  exercising  it,  in  fit  cases,  was  imposed  on  the  President  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  President  could  not  be  deprived  of 
this  power  or  relieved  of  this  duty,  nor  could  the  same  be  vested  by  laAV  in  the 
President  and  the  Senate  jointly,  either  in  part  or  whole  ;  and  this  has  ever  since 
remained  and  was  the  opinion  of  this  respondent  at  the  time  when  he  v\ms 
forced  as  aforesaid  to  consider  and  decide  what  act  or  acts  should  and  might 
lawfully  be  done  by  this  respondent,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  to  cause 
the  said  Stanton  to  surrender  the  said  office. 

This  respondent  was  also  then  aware  that  by  the  first  section  of  "An  act 
regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1S67,  by  a  con- 
stitutional majority  of  both  houses  of  Congress,  it  was  enacted  as  follows  : 

That  every  person  holdiug  any  civil  oflSce  to  which  he  has  been  appointed  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  every  person  who  shall  hereafter  be  appointed  to  any 
such  office,  and  shall  become  duly  qualitied  to  act  therein,  is  and  shall  be  entitled  to  hold 
such  office  until  a  successor  shall  have  been  in  like  manner  appointed  and  duly  quaiified, 
except  as  herein  otherwise  provided:  Provided,  That  the  Secretaries  of  State,  of  the  Troas-- 
my,  of  War,  of  the  Navy,  and  of  the  Interior,  the  Postmaster  General  and  the  Attorney 
General,  shall  hold  their  offices  respectively  for  and  durinf^  the  term  of  the  President  by 
whom  they  may  have  been  appointed,  and  one  month  thereafter,  subject  to  removal  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

This  respondent  was  also  aware  that  this  act  was  understood  and  intended  to 
be  an  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the  Congress  by  which  that  act  was  passed, 
that  the  power  to  rem!)ve  executive  officers  for  cause  might,  by  law,  be  taken 
from  the  President  iind  vested  in  him  and  the  Senate  jointly  ;  and  although  this 
respondent  had  arrived  at  and  still  retained  the  opinion  above  expressed,  and 
verily  believed,  as  he  still  believes,. that  the  said  first  section  of  the  last-men- 
tioned act  was  and  is  wholly  inoperative  and  void  by  reason  of  its  confiict  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  yet,  inasmuch  as  the  same  had  been 
enacted  by  the  constitutional  majority  in  each  of  the  two  houses  of  that  Con- 
gress,  this  respondent  considered  it  to  be  prf)per  to  examine  and  decide  whether 
the  particular  case  of  the  said  Stanton,  on  which  it  was  this  respondent's  duty 
to  act,  was  within  or  without  the  terms  of  that  first  section  of  the  act ;  or,  if 
within  it,  whether  the  President  had  not  the  power,  according  to  the  terms  of 
the  act,  to  remove  the  said  Stanton  from  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War,  and  having,  in  his  capacity  of  President  of  the  United  States,  so 
examined  and  considered,  did  form  the  opinion  that  the  case  of  the  said  Stan- 


40  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

tou  and  his  tenure  of  office  were  not  affected  by  the  first  section  of  the  last- 
named  act. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says,  that  although  a  case  thus  ex- 
isted which,  in  his  judgment  as  President  of  the  United  States,  called  for  the 
exercise  of  the  executive  power  to  remove  the  said  Stanton  from  the  oifice  of 
Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  and  although  this  respondent  was  of 
opinion,  as  is  above  shown,  that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
the  power  to  remove  the  said  Stanton  from  the  said  office  was  vested  in  the 
President  of  tlie  United  States ;  and  although  this  respondent  was  also  of  the 
opinion,  as  is  above  shown,  that  the  case  of  the  said  Stanton  was  not  ai^ected  by 
the  first  section  of  the  last-named  act ;  and  although  each  of  the  said  opinions 
had  been  formed  by  this  respondent  upon  an  actual  case,  requiring  him,  in  his 
capacity  of  President  of  the  United  States,  to  come  to  some  judgment  and 
determination  thereon,  yet  this  respondent,  as  President  of  the  United  Slates, 
desired  and  determined  to  avoid,  if  possible,  any  question  of  the  construction 
and  effect  of  the  said  first  section  of  the  last-named  act,  and  also  the  broadt^-r 
question  of  the  executive  power  conferred  on  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  remove  one  of  the  principal 
officers  of  one  of  the  executive  departments  for  cause  seeming  to  him  sufficient ; 
and  this  respondent  also  desired  and  determined  tliat,  if  from  causes  over  which 
he  could  exert  no  control,  it  should  become  absolutely  necessary  to  raise  and 
have,  in  some  way,  determined  either  or  both  of  the  said  last-named  questions, 
it  was  in  accor.lance  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  was 
required  of  the  President  thereby,  that  questions  of  so  much  gravity  and  impor- 
tance, upon  which  the  legislative  and  executive  departments  of  the  government 
had  disagreed,  which  involved  powers  considered  by  all  branches  of  the  govern- 
ment, during  its  entire  history  down  to  the  year  1867,  to  have  been  confided 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  the  President,  and  to  be  necessary 
for  the  complete  and  proper  execittiou  of  his  constitutional  duties,  should  be  in 
some  proper  way  submitted  to  that  judicial  department  of  the  government 
intrusted  by  the  Constitution  with  the  power,  and  subjected  by  it  to  the  duty, 
not  only  of  determining  finally  the  construction  of  and  effect  of  all  acts  of 
Congress,  but  of  comparing  them  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
and  pronouncing  them  inoperative  when  found  in  conflict  with  that  fundamental 
law  which  the  people  have  enacted  for  the  government  of  all  their  servants. 
And  to  these  ends,  first,  that  through. the  action  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  the  absolute  duty  of  the  President  to  substitute  some  fit  person  in  place 
of  Mr.  Stanton  as  one  of  his  advisers,  and  as  a  principal  subordinate  officer 
whose  official  couduct  he  was  responsible  for  and  had  lawful  right  to  control, 
might,  if  possible,  be  accomplished  without  the  necessity  of  raising  any  one  of 
the  questions  aforesaid;  and,  second,  if  this  duty  could  not  be  so  performed, 
then  that  these  questions,  or  such  of  tliem  as  might  necessarily  arise,  should  be 
judicially  determined  in  manner  aforesaid,  and  for  no  other  end  or  purj)oso  this 
res|iondent,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  12tli  day  of  August,  1867, 
seven  days  after  the  reception  of  the  letter  of  the  said  Stanton  of  the  oth  of 
August,  hereinbefore  stated,  did  issue  to  the  said  Stanton  the  order  following, 
namely : 

Executive  Mansion, 
Washington,  August  1'2,  18G7. 

Sir  :  By  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  nio  us  President  by  tiie  Constitution 
and  hiws  of  tlic  United  States,  you  are  hercljy  susjieiided  from  olFice  as  Secretary  of  War, 
and  will  cease  to  exercise  any  and  all  functions  pertaininj:^  to  flie  same. 

You  will  at  once  transfer  to  General  Ulysses  S.  Grant,  who  has  this  day  been  authorized 
and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ml  interim,  all  records,  books,  papers,  and  other 
jiublic  property  now  in  your  custody  and  charge. 

The  Huu.  EuwiN  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  il'ar. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  41 

To  which  said  order  the  said  Stanton  made  the  following  reply : 

War  Dr.i'ARTMFXT, 
Washington  City,  August  VZ,  1867. 

Sir:  Your  note  of  tliis  date  has  been  received,  iiiforniinp:  me  that,  by  virtue  of  the  powers 
vested  iu  you  as  President  by  the  Coustitutiou  and  hiws  of  the  United  States,  I  am  suspend- 
ed from  office  as  Secretary  of  War,  and  will  cease  to  exercise  any  and  all  functions  pertain- 
ing to  the  same,  and  also  directing^  me  at  once  to  transfer  to  General  Ulysses  S.  Graut,  who 
Las  this  day  been  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  nd  interim,  all 
records,  books,  papers,  and  other  public  property  now  in  my  custody  and  charge.  Under  a 
sense  of  public  dut}-  I  am  coni])elled  to  deny  your  rip:ht,  under  the  Constitution  and  huNS  of 
llie  United  States,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  without  legal  cause,  to 
suspend  me  from  office  as  Secretary  of  War,  or  the  exerciseof  any  or  all  functions  pertaining 
to  the  same,  or  witliout  such  advice  and  consent  to  compel  me  to  transfer  to  any  ])eison  the 
records,  books,  papers,  and  public  property  in  my  custody  as  Secretary.  15ut  inasunich  as 
the  General  commanding  the  armies  of  the  United  States  has  been  ajjpoiiited  iirl  interim,  and 
has  notified  me  that  he  has  accepted  the  appointment,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  submit, 
under  protest,  to  superior  forcf . 

To  the  President. 

Aud  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says,  that  it  is  provided  in  and  by 
the  second  section  of  "An  act  to  regulate  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  that 
the  President  may  suspend  an  officer  from  the  performance  of  the  duties  of  the 
office  held  by  him,  for  certain  causes  therein  designated,  until  the  next  meeting 
of  the  Senate,  aud  until  the  case  shall  be  acted  on  by  the  SL-nate;  that  this 
respondent,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  was  advised,  and  he  verily  be- 
lieved and  still  believes,  that  the  executive  power  of  removal  from  office  confided 
to  him  by  the  Constitution  as  aforesaid  includes  the  power  of  suspension  from 
office  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  and  this  respondent,  by  the  order  afore- 
said, did  suspend  the  said  Stanton  from  office,  not  until  the  next  meeting  of  the 
Senate,  or  until  the  Senate  should  have  acted  upon  the  case,  but  by  force  of 
the  po^ver  and  authority  vested  in  him  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  indefinitely  and  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  and  the  order, 
in  form  aforesaid,  was  made  known  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the 
I2t]i  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1867,  as  will  be  more  fully  hereinafter  stated. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says,  that  in  and  by  the  act  of  Feb- 
ruary 13,  1795,  it  was,  among  other  things,  provided  and  enacted  that,  in  case 
of  vacancy  in  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  it  shall  be  law- 
ful for  the  President,  in  case  he  shall  think  it  necessary,'to  authorize  any  per- 
son to  perform  the  duties  of  that  office  until  a  successor  be  appointed  or  such 
vacancy  filled,  but  not  exceeding  the  term  of  six  months  ;  and  this  respondent, 
being  advised  and  believing  that  such  law  was  in  full  force  and  not  repealed,  by 
an  order  dated  August  12,  1867,  did  authorize  and  empower  Ulysses  S.  Grant, 
General  of  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  to  act  as  Secretary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War  ad  in(cr{??i,  in  the  form  in  which  similar  authority  had  theretofore 
been  given,  not  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Senate  and  until  the  Senate  should 
act  on  the  case,  but  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  subject  only  to  the  limita- 
tion of  six  months  in  the  said  last  mentioned  act  contained  ;  and  a  copy  of  the 
last-named  order  was  made  known  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  12th 
day  of  December,  A.  D.  1867,  as  will  be  hereinafter  more  fully  stated;  and  in 
pursuance  of  the  design  and  intention  aforesaid,  if  it  should  become  necessary 
to  submit  the  said  questions  to  a  judicial  determination,  this  respondent,  at  or 
near  the  date  of  the  last-mentioned  order,  did  make  known  such  his  purpose  to 
obtain  a  judicial  decision  of  the  said  questions,  or  such  of  them  as  might  be 
necessary. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says,  that  in  further  pursuance  of  his 
intention  aud  design,  if  possible,  to  perform  wiiat  he  judg(^d  to  be  his  imperative 
duty,  to  prevent  the  said  Stanton  from  longer  holding  the  office  of  Secretary  for 
the  Department  of  War,  and  at  the  same  time  avoiding,  if  possible,  any  ques- 
tion respecting  the  extent  of  the  power  of  removal  from  executive  office  confided 


42  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

to  the  Prosiflcnt  by  tlie  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  any  question 
respecting  the  construction  and  effect  of  the  first  section  of  the  said  ''  act  regulating 
the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  -while  he  should  not,  by  any  act  of  his,  aban- 
don and  relinquish,  either  a  power  which  lie  believed  the  Constitution  had  con- 
ferred on  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  enable  him  to  perform  the 
duties  of  his  office,  or  a  i)ower  designedly  left  to  him  by  the  first  section  of  the  act 
of  Congress  last  aforesaid,  this  respondent  did,  on  the  12th  day  of  December, 
1S67,  transmit  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a  message  a  copy  whereof 
is  hereunto  annexed  and  marked  B,  wherein  he  made  known  the  orders  afore- 
said and  the  reasons  which  had  induced  the  same,  so  far  as  this  respondent  then 
considered  it  material  and  necessary  that  the  same  should  be  set  forth,  and  reit- 
erated his  views  concerning  the  constitutional  power  of  removal  vested  in  the 
President,  and  also  expressed  his  views  concerning  the  construction  of  the  said 
first  section  of  the  last-mentioned  act,  as  respected  the  power  of  the  President 
to  remove  the  said  Stanton  from  the  said  office  of  Seci'etary  for  the  Department 
of  War,  well  hoping  that  this  respondent  could  thus  perform  what  he  then  be- 
lieved, and  still  believes,  to  be  his  imperative  duty  in  reference  to  the  said  Stan- 
ton, without  derogating  from  the  powers  which  this  respondent  believed  were 
confided  to  the  President,  by  the  Constitution  and  laws,  and  without  the  neces- 
sity of  raising,  judicially,  any  questions  respecting  the  same. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says,  that  this  hope  not  having  been 
realized,  the  President  was  compelled  either  to  allow  the  said  Stanton  to  resume 
the  said  office  and  remain  therein  contrary  to  the  settled  convictions  of  the  Pres- 
ident, formed  as  aforesaid,  respecting  the  powers  confided  to  him  and  the  duties 
requited  of  him  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  contrary  to  the 
opinion  formed  as  aforesaid,  that  the  first  section  of  the  last-mentioned  act  did 
not  affect  the  case  of  the  said  Stanton,  and  contrary  to  the  fixed  belief  of  the 
President  that  he  could  no  longer  advise  with  or  trust  or  be  responsible  for  the 
said  Stanton,  in  the  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  or  else 
he  was  compelled  to  take  such  steps  as  m  ght,  in  the  judgment  of  the  President, 
be  lawful  and  necessary  to  raise,  for  a  judicial  decision,  the  questions  affecting 
the  lawful  right  of  the  said  Stanton  to  resume  the  said  oftice,  or  the  power  of 
the  said  Stanton  to  persist  in  refusing  to  quit  the  said  office  if  he  should  persist 
in  actually  refusing  to  quit  the  same ;  and  to  this  end,  and  to  this  end  only, 
tliis  respondent  did,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  1SG8,  issue  the  order  for  the 
removal  of  the  said  Stanton,  in  the  said  first  article  raentionrd  and  set  forth,  and 
the  order  authorizing  the  said  Lorenzo  F.  Thomas  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War 
ad  interim,  in  the  said  second  article  set  forth. 

And  this  respondent,  proceeding  to  answer  specifically  each  substantial  allega- 
tion in  the  said  first  article,  says  :  He  denies  that  the  said  Stanton,  on  the  2l3t 
day  of  February,  1868.  was  lawfully  in  possession  of  the  said  otfice  of  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  AVar.  He  denies  that  the  said  Stanton,  on  the  day  last 
mentioned,  was  lawfully  entitled  to  hold  the  said  oftice  against  the  will  of  the 
I'rcsident  of  the  United  States.  He  denies  that  the  said  order  for  the  removal 
of  the  said  Stanton  was  unlawfully  issued.  He  deni(!S  that  the  said  order  was 
issued  with  intent  to  violate  the  act  entitled  "  An  act  to  regulate  the  tenure  of 
certain  civil  i.ffices."  He  denies  that  the  said  order  was  a  violation  of  the  last- 
mentioned  act.  He  denies  that  the  said  order  was  a  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion <jf  the  United  States,  or  of  an^'^  law  thereof,  or  of  his  oath  of  office.  He 
denies  that  the  said  order  was  issued  with  an  intent  to  violate  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  or  any  law  thereof,  or  this  respondent's  oath  of  office  ;  and 
he  respectfully,  but  earnestly,  insists  that  not  only  was  it  issucnl  by  him  in  the 
.  performance  of  what  he  believed  to  be  an  imperative  ofticial  duty,  but  in  the 
performance  of  what  this  honorable  court  will  consider  was,  in  point  of  fact,  an 
imjjerative  official  duty.  And  he  denies  that  any  and  all  substantive  matters, 
iu  the  said  first  article  contained,  in  manner  and   form  as  the  same  are  therein 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  43 

stated  and  sot  forth,  do,  by  law,  constitute  a  high  misdemcjinor  in  office,  within 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  theOonstitution  of  the  United  States. 

ANSWER    TO    ARTICLE    II. 

And  for  answer  to  the  second  article,  this  respondent  says  that  he  admits  he 
did  ifisue  and  deliver  to  said  Lorenzo  Thomas  the  said  writing  set  forth  in  said 
gecoud  article,  bearing  date  at  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  February  21, 
ISGS,  addressed  to  Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  General 
United  States  army,  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  and  he  further  admits 
that  the  same  was  so  issued  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  then  in  session  ;  but  he  denies  that  he  thereby  violated  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  or  any  law  thereof,  or  that  he  did  thereby  intend 
to  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  or  the  provisions  of  any  act  of 
Congress ;  and  this  respondent  refers  to  his  answer  to  said  first  article  for  a  full 
statement  of  the  purposes  and  intentions  with  which  said  order  was  issued,  and 
adopts  the  same  as  part  of  his  answer  to  this  article  ;  and  he  further  denies  that 
there  was  then  and  there  no  vacancy  in  the  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the 
Department  of  War,  or  that  he  did  then  and  there  commit  or  was  guilty  of  a 
high  misdemeanor  in  office ;  and  this  respondent  maintains  and  will  insist : 

1.  That  at  the  date  and  delivery  of  said  writing  there  was  a  vacancy  existing 
in  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War. 

2.  That,  notwithstanding  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  was  then  in  ses- 
sion, it  was  lawful  and  according  to  long  and  well-established  usage  to  empower 
and  authorize  the  said  Thomas  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim. 

3.  That  if  the  said  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  civil  offices  be  held  to  be  a 
valid  law,  no  provision  of  the  same  was  violated  by  the  issuing  of  said  order  or 
by  the  designation  of  said  Thomas  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim. 

ANSWER    TO    ARTICLE    III. 

And  for  answer  to  said  third  article,  this  respondent  says  that  he  abides  by 
his  answer  to  said  first  and  second  articles  in  so  far  as  the  same  are  responsive 
to  the  allegations  contained  in  the  said  third  article,  and,  without  here  again 
repeating  the  same  answer,  prays  the  same  be  taken  as  an  answer  to  this  third 
article  is  fully  as  if  here  again  set  out  at  length  ;  and  as  to  the  new  allegation 
contained  in  said  third  article,  that  this  respondent  did  appoint  the  said  Thomas 
to  be  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  ad  interim,  this  respondent  denies 
that  he  gave  any  other  authority  to  said  Thomas  than  such  as  appears  in  said 
written  authority  set  out  in  said  article,  by  which  he  authorized  and  empowered 
said  Thomas  to  act  as  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  ad  interim  ;  and 
he  denies  that  the  same  amounts  to  an  appointment,  and  insists  that  it  is  only  a 
designation  of  an  officer  of  that  department  to  act  temporarily  as  Secretary  for 
tlie  Department  of  War  ad  interim,  until  an  appointment  should  be  made.  But, 
whether  the  said  written  authority  amounts  to  an  appointment  or  to  a  temporary 
authority  or  designation,  this  respondent  denies  that  in  any  sense  he  did  thereby 
intend  to  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  that  he  thereby  in- 
tended to  give  the  said  order  the  character  or  effect  of  an  appointment  in  the 
constitutional  or  legal  sense  of  that  term.  He  further  denies  that  there  was  no 
Vacancy  in  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  existing  at  the 
date  of  said  written  authority. 

ANSWER   TO    ARTICLE    IV. 

And  for  answer  to  said  fourth  article  this  respondent  denies  that  on  the  said 
21st  day  of  February,  1868,  at  Washington  aforesaid,  or  at  any  other  time  or 
place,  he  did  unlawfully  conspire  with  the  said  Lorenzo  Thomas,  or  with  the 
said  Thomas  and  any  other  person  or  persons,  with  intent,  by  intimidations  and 


44  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

threats,  unlawfully  to  hinder  and  prevent  the  said  Stanton  from  holding  said 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  or  of  the  provisions  of  the  said  act  of  Congress  in  said 
article  mentioned,  or  that  he  did  then  and  there  commit  or  was  guilty  of  a  high 
crime  in  office.  On  the  contrary  thereof,  protesting  that  the  said  Stanton  was 
not  then  and  there  lawfully  the  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  thia 
respondent  states  that  his  sole  purpose  in  authorizing  the  said  Thomas  to  act  Jis 
Secretary  for  the  Dejjartment  of  War  ad  interim  was,  as  is  fully  stated  in  hia 
answer  to,  the  said  tirst  article,  to  bring  the  question  of  the  right  of  the  said 
Stanton  to  -hold  ajiid  office,  notwithstanding  his  said  suspension,  and  notwith- 
standing the  said  order  of  removal,  and  notwithstanding  the  said  authority  of 
the  said  Thomas  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  to  the  test  of  a  final 
decision  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  earliest  practicable 
mode  by  which  the  question  could  be  brought  before  that  tribunal. 

This  respondent  did  not  conspire  or  agree  with  the  said  Thomas,  or  any  other 
person  or  persons,  to  use  intimidation  or  threats  to  hinder  or  prevent  the  said 
Stanton  from  holding  the  said  office  of  Secretary  for  tlie  Department  of  War, 
nor  did  this  respondent  at  any  time  command  or  advise  the  said  Thomas  or  any 
other  person  or  persons  to  resort  to  or  use  either  tlu'eats  or  intimidations  for  that 
purpose.  The  only  means  in  the  contemplation  or  purpose  of  respondent  to  be 
used  are  set  forth  fully  in  the  said  orders  of  February  21,  the  first  addressed  to 
Mr.  Stanton  and  the  second  to  the  said  Thomas. 

By  the  first  order  the  respondent  notified  Mr.  Stanton  that  he  was  removed 
from  the  s;iid  office,  and  that  his  functions  as  Secretary  for  the  Department  of 
War  were  to  terminate  upon  the  receipt  of  that  order ;  and  he  also  thereby 
notified  the  said  Stanton  that  the  said  Thomas  had  been  authorized  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary for  the  Department  of  War  ad  interim,  and  ordered  the  said  Stanton  to 
transfer  to  him  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other  public  property  in  his 
custody  and  charge  ;  and  by  the  second  order  this  respondent  notified  ihe  said 
Thomas  of  the  removal  from  office  of  the  said  Stanton,  and  authorized  him  to 
act  as  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  ad,  interim,  and  directed  him  to 
immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to  that  ofiice,  and 
to  receive  the  transfer  of  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other  public  prop- 
erty from  Mr.  Stanton  then  in  his  custody  and  charge. 

Kespondent  gave  no  instructions  to  the  said  Thomas  to  use  intimidation  or 
threa's  to  enforce  obedience  to  these  orders.  He  gave  him  no  authority  to 
call  in  the  aid  of  the  military  or  any  other  force  to  enable  him  to  obtain  pos- 
session of  the  office,  or  of  the  books,  papers,  records,  or  property  thereof.  The 
only,  agency  resorted  to  or  intended  to  be  resorted  to  was  hy  means  of  the  said 
executive  orders  requiring  obedience.  But  the  Secretary  of  the  Department  of 
War  refused  to  obey  these  orders,  and  still  holds  undisturbed  possession  and 
custody  of  that  department,  and  of  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other  public 
property  therein.  Respondent  further  states  that,  in  execution  of  the  orders  so 
by  this  respondent  given  to  the  said  Thomas,  he,  the  said  Thomas,  proceeded  in 
a  peaceful  man'ner  to  demand  of  the  said  Stanton  a  surrender  to  him  of  \\\q 
public  property  in  the  said  department,  and  to  vacate  the  possession  of  tlie 
same,  and  to  allow  him,  the  said  Thomas,  jjeaceably  to  exercise  the  duties 
devolv(>d  upon  him  by  authority  of  the  President.  That,  as  this  respondent  has 
been  informed  and  l)eli(!ves,  the  said  Stanton  peremptorily  refused  obedience  to 
the  orders  so  issued.  Upon  such  refusal  no  force  or  threat  of  force  was  used  by 
the  said  Thomas,  by  authority  of  the  President  or  otherwise,  to  enforce  obe- 
dience, either  then  or  at  any  subsequent  time. 

This  respondent  doth  here  except  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  allegations  con- 
tained in  said  fourth  article,  and  states  for  ground  of  exception  that  it  is  not 
stated  that  there  was  any  agreement  between  this  respondent  iind  the  said 
Thomas,  or  any  other  person  or  persons,  to  use  intimidation  and  threats,  nor  is 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  45 

there  any  allegation  as  to  the  nnture  of  said  intimidation  and  threats,  or  that 
there  was  any  agreement  to  carry  them  into  execution,  or  that  any  step  was 
taken  or  agreed  to  be  taken  to  carry  them  into  execution,  and  that  the?  allegation 
in  said  article  that  the  intent  of  said  conspiracy  was  to  use  intimidation  and 
threats  is  wholly  insufficient,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  alleged  that  the  said  intent 
formed  th<!  basis  or  bi^come  a  part  of  any  agreement  between  the  said  alleged 
conspirators,  and,  furthermore,  that  there  is  no  allegation  of  any  conspiracy  or 
agreement  to  use  intimidation  or  threats. 

ANSWER  TO  ARTICLE  V. 

And  for  answer  to  the  said  fifth  article  this  respondent  denies  that  on  the 
said  21st  day  of  February,  1868,  or  at  any  other  time  or  times  in  the  same  year 
before  the  said  ^d  day  of  March,  1868,  or  at  any  prior  or  subsequent  time,  at 
Washington  aforesaid,  or  at  any  other  place,  this  respondent  did  unlawfully 
conspire  with  the  said  Thomas,  or  with  any  other  person  or  persons,  to  prevent 
or  hinder  the  execution  of  the  said  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  "the  tenure 
of  certain  civil  offices,"  or  that,  in  pursuance  of  said  alli-ged  conspiracy,  he  did 
unlawfully  attempt  to  prevent  the  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  hi)lding  said 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  or  that  he  did  thereby  commit, 
or  that  he  was  thereby  guilty  of,  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office.  Respondent, 
proiesting  that  said  Stanton  was  not  then  and  there  Secretary  for  the  Department 
of  War,  begs  leave  to  refer  to  his  answer  given  to  the  fourth  article  and  to  his 
answer  given  to  the  first  article,  as  to  his  intent  and  purpose  in  issuing  the  orders 
for  the  removal  of  Mr,  Stanton  and  the  authority  given  to  the  said  Thomas, 
and  prays  equal  benefit  therefrom  as  if  the  same  were  here  again  repeated  and 
fully  set  forth. 

And  this  respondent  excepts  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  said  fifth  article,  and 
states  his  ground  for  such  exception,  that  it  is  not  alleged  by  what  means  or  hy 
what  agreement  tlie  said  alleged  conspiracy  was  formed  or  agreed  to  be  carried 
out,  or  in  what  way  the  same  was  attempted  to  be  carried  out,  or  what  were  the 
acts  done  in  pursuance  thereof. 


ANSWER  TO  ARTICLE  VI. 


le 
time 


And  for  answer  to  the  said  sixth  article,  this  respondent  denies  that  on  tl 
said  21st  day  of  February,  1868,  at  Washington  aforesaid,  or  at  any  other  tin.v. 
ov  place,  he  did  unlawfully  conspire  with  the  said  Thomas  by  force  to  seize, 
take,  or  possess,  the  property  of  the  United  States  in  the  Department  of  War, 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  said  acts  referred  to  in  the  said  article,  or  either 
of  them,  or  with  intent  to  violate  either  of  them.  Respondent,  protesting  that 
said  Stanton  was  not  then  and  there  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  not 
only  denies  the  said  conspiracy  as  charged,  but  also  denies  any  unlawful  intent 
in  reference  to  the  custody  and  charge  of  the  property  of  the  United  States  in 
the  said  Department  of  War,  and  again  refers  to  his  former  answers  for  a  full 
statement  of  his  intent  and  purpose  iu  the  premises. 

ANSWER  TO  ARTICLE  VII. 

And  for  answer  to  the  said  seventh  article,  respondent  denies  that  on  the  said 
.21st  day  of  February,  1S6S,  at  Washington  aforesaid,  or  at  any  other  time  and 
place  he  did  unlawfully  conspire  with  the  said  Thomas  Avith  intent  unlawfully 
to  seize,  take,  or  possess  the  projjerty  of  the  United  States  in  the  Department 
of  War  with  intent  to  violate  or  disregard  the  said  act  in  the  sa'd  seventh 
article  referred  to,  or  that  he  did  then  and  there  commit  a  high  misdemeanor  in 
office.     Respondent,  protesting  that  the  said  Stanton  was  not  then  and  there 


46  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Secretary  for  the  Department  of  "War,  ao^ain  refers  to  liis  former  answers,  in  so 
far  as  they  are  applicable,  to  show  the  intent  with  which  he  proceeded  in  the 
premises,  and  prays  equal  benefit  therefrom,  as  if  the  same  were  here  again 
fully  repeated.  Respondent  further  takes  exception  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
allegations  of  this  article  as  to  the  conspiracy  alleged  upon  the  same  grounds 
a^  stated  in  the  exception  set  forth  in  his  answer  to  said  article  fourth. 

ANSWER  TO  ARTICLE   VFII. 

And  for  answer  to  the  said  eighth  article  this  respondent  denies  that  on  the 
2 1st  day  of  February,  1868,  at  AVashington  aforesaid,  or  at  any  otht^r  time  and 
place,  he  did  issue  and  deliver  to  the  said  Thomas  the  said  letter  of  authority 
set  forth  in  the  said  eighth  article,  with  the  intent  unlawfully  to  control  the  dis- 
bursements of  the  money  appropriated  for  the  military  service  and  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War.  This  respondent,  protesting  that  there  was  a  vacancy  in  the 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  iidmits  that  he  did  issue  the 
said  letter  of  authority,  and  he  denies  that  the  same  was  with  any  unlawful 
intent  whatever,  either  to  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  or  any 
act  of  Congress.  On  the  contrary,  this  respondent  again  affirms  that  his  sofe 
intent  was  to  vindicate  his  authority  as  President  of  the  United  States,  and  by 
peaceful  means  to  bring  the  question  of  the  right  of  the  said  Stanton  to  continue 
to  hold  the  said  office  of  Secretary  of  War  to  a  final  decision  before  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  as  has  been  hereinbefore  set  forth  ;  and  he  prays 
the  same  benefit  from  his  answer  in  the  premises  as  if  the  same  were  here  again 
repeated  at  length. 

ANSWER  TO  ARTICLE  IX. 

And  for  answer  to  the  said  ninth  article  the  respondent  stiites  that  on  the  said 
22d  day  of  February,  1868,  the  following  note  was  addressed  lo  the  said  Emory 
by  the  private  secretary  of  respondent  : 

Executive  Mansion, 
IFashington,  D.  C,  February  '22,  1SG8. 

General:  The  President  directs  mo  to  say  that  he  will  be  pleased  to  have  you  call  upon 
liim  us  eaiiy  as  practieablc. 

Eespectfully  and  truly  yours, 

WILLIAIM  G.  MOORE, 

Utiitcil  6tiili:s  Army. 

General  Emory  called  at  the  Executive  Mansion  according  to  this  request. 
The  object  of  respondent  was  to  be  advised  by  General  Emory,  as  commander 
of  the  department  of  Washington,  what  changes  had  been  made  in  the  military 
affairs  of  the  department.  Respondent  had  been  informed  that  various  changes 
had  bc'cn  made,  which  in  nowise  had  been  brought  to  his  notice  or  reported  to 
him  from  the  Department  of  War,  or  from  any  other  quarter,  and  desired  to 
ascertain  the  facts.  After  the  said  Emory  had  explained  in  detail  the  changes 
which  had  taken  place,  said  Emory  called  the  attention  of  respondent  to  a 
general  order  which  he  referrc'd  to  and  which  this  respondent  then  sent  for,  when 
it  was  produced.     It  is  as  follows  : 

[(jeiieral  Orders  No.  17.] 

War  Department,  Adjut.^nt  General's  Oefice, 

U'(ishi>t<rluN,  March  14,  ]8C7.     * 

The  fullowing  acts  of  Congress  are  published  for  the  information  and  {government  of  all 
concerned : 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


47 


II— Public— No.  85. 

AN  ACT  makiug  appropriations  for  tlie  support  of  the  army  for  the  year  ending  June  30.  1808, 

and  for  other  purposes. 


Skc  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  tlie  headquarters  of  the  General  of  the  army  of  tlie 
United  States  shall  be  at  the  city  of  Washington,  and  all  orders  and  instructions  relating  to 
military  operations  issued  by  the  President  or  Secretary  of  War  shall  be  issued  through  the 
General  ot  the  army,  and  in  case  of  his  inaljility,  through  the  next  in  rank.  The  General  of 
the  army  shall  not"  be  removed,  suspended,  or  relieved  from  command  or  assigned  to  duty 
elsewhere  than  at  said  headquarters,  except  at  his  own  rccpiest,  without  the  previous 
approval  of  the  Senate;  and  any  oiders  or  instructions  relating  to  military  operations  issued 
contrary  to  the  requirements  of  this  section  shall  be  null  and  void;  and  any  officer  who  shall 
issue  orders  or  instructions  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor  in  office  ;  and  any  officer  of  the  array  who  shall  transmit,  convey,  or  obey 
any  orders  or  instructions  so  issued  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section,  kno>ving  that 
such  orders  were  so  issued,  shall  be  liable  to  imprisonment  for  not  less  than  two  nor  more 
thaja  twenty  years,  upon  conviction  thereof  in  tmy  court  of  competoiit  jurisdiction. 


Approved  March  2,  18G7. 

By  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War : 

Official: 


E.  D.  TOW^NSEND, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General. 


Assistant  Adjutant  General. 

General  Emoiy  not  only  called  the  attention  of  respondent  to  this  order,  but 
to  the  fact  that  it  waa  in  conformity  with  a  section  contained  in  an  appropriation 
act  passed  by  Congress.  Respondent,  after  reading  the  order,  observed  :  "This 
is  not  in  accordance  with  the  Constitntion  of  the  United  States,  which  makes 
me  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy,  or  of  the  language  of  the  com- 
mission which  you  hold."  General  Emory  then  stated  that  tiiis  order  had  met 
respondent's  approval.  Respondent  then  said  in  reply,  in  substance,  "Am  I  to 
understand  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  cannot  give  an  order  but 
through  the  Geueral-in-cldef,  or  General  Grant?"  General  Emory  again  reit- 
erated the  statement  that  it  had  met  respondent's  approval,  and  that  it  was  the 
opinion  of  some  of  the  leading  lawyers  of  the  country  that  this  order  was  con- 
stitutional. With  some  further  consideration,  respondent  then  inquired  the 
names  of  the  lawyers  who  had  given  the  opinion,  and  he  mentioned  the  names 
of  two.  Respondent  then  said  that  the  object  of' the  lav/  was  very  evident, 
referring  to  the  clause  in  the  appropriation  act  upon  which  the  order  purported 
to  be  based.  This,  according  to  respondent's  recollection,  was  the  substance  of 
the  conversation  had  with  General  Emory. 

Respondent  denies  that  any  allegations  in  the  said  article  of  any  instructions 
or  declarations  given  to  the  said  Emory,  then  or  at  any  other  time,  contrary  to  or 
in  addition  to  what  is  hereinbefore  set  forth,  are  true.  Respondent  denies  that, 
in  said  conversation  with  said  Emory,  he  had  any  other  intent  than  to  express 
the  opinions  then  given  to  the  said  Emory ;  nor  did  he  then,  or  at  any  time, 
request  or  order  the  said  Emory  to  disobey  any  law  or  any  order  issued  in  con- 
formity with  any  law,  or  intend  to  offer  any  inducement  to  the  said  Emory  to 
violate  any  law.  What  this  respondent  then  said  to  General  Emory  was  simply 
tlie  expression  of  an  opinion  which  he  then  fully  believed  to  be  sound,  and 
which  he  yet  believes  to  be  so — and  that  is,  that  by  the  express  provisions  of 
the  Constitution,  this  respondent,  as  President,  is  made  the  commander-in-chief 
•  of  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  and  as  such  he  is  to  be  respected ;  and  that 
his  orders,  whether  issued  through  the  War  Department  or  through  the  General- 
in-chief,  or  by  any  other  channel  of  communication,  are  entitled  to  respect  and 
obedience ;  and  that  such  constitutional  power  cannot  be  taken  from  him  by 
virtue  of  any  act  of  Congress.     Respondent  doth  therefore   deny  that  by  the 


48  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

expression  of  such  opinion  he  did  commit  or  was  guihy  of  a  high  misdemeanor 
in  office.  And  this  respondent  doth  further  say  that  the  said  article  nine  lays 
no  foundatio^i  whatever  for  the  concUision  stated  in  the  said  article,  that  the 
respondent,  by  reason  of  the  allegations  therein  contained,  was  guilty  of  a  high 
misdemeanor  in  office. 

In  reference  to  the  statement  made  by  General  Jilraory  that  this  respondent 
had  approved  of  said  act  of  Congress  containing  the  section  referred  to,  the 
respondent  admits  that  his  formal  approval  was  given  to  said  act,  but  accompanied 
the  same  by  the  following  message,  addressed  and  sent  with  the  act  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  in  which  House  the  said  act  originated,  and  from 
which  it  came  to  respondent : 
2o  the  House  of  Representatives  : 

The  act  eutitled  "  Au  act  making  appropriations  for  tlie  support  of  the  arrny  for  tlie  year 
ending  June  3t),  1808,  and  for  other  purposes,"  contains  provisions  to  which  I  mnst  call 
attention.  These  provisions  are  contained  in  the  2d  section,  which,  in  certain  cases,  virtually 
deprives  the  President  of  his  constitutional  functions  as  comniander-iu-chief  of  the  army,  aini 
in  the  sixth  section,  which  denies  to  ten  States  of  the  Union  their  constitutional  right  to  protect 
themselves,  in  any  emergency,  hy  means  of  their  own  militia.  These  provisions  are  out  of 
place  in  au  apjiropriatiou  act,  but  I  am  compelled  to  defeat  these  necessary  appropriations  if 
1  withhold  my  signature  from  the  act.  Pressed  by  these  considerations,  1  feel  constrained  tti 
return  the  bill  with  my  signature,  but  to  accompany  it  with  my  earnest  protest  agaiust  the 
sections  which  I  have  indicated. 

Wasuington,  D.  C,  March  2,  1867. 

Respondent,  therefore,  did  no  more  than  to  express  to  said  Einory  the  same 
opinion  which  he  had  expressed  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

ANSWER  TO  ARTICLE  X. 

And  in  answer  to  the  tenth  article  and  specifications  thereof  the  respondent 
says  that  on  the  14th  and  15th  days  of  August,  in  the  year  1866,  a  political 
conV(nition  of  delegates  from  all  or  most  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the 
Union  was  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  under  the  name  and  style  of  the 
National  Union  Convention,  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  and  adv'ancing  cer- 
tain political  views  and  opinions  before  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  for 
their  support  and  adoption  in  the  exercise  of  the  constitutional  suffrage,  in  the 
elections  of  representatives  and  delegates  in  Congress,  which  were  soon  to  occur 
in  many  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  Union;  which  said  convention,  in 
the  course  of  its  proceedings,  and  in  furtherance  of  the  objects  of  the  same, 
adopted  a  "  declai'ation  of  .principles"  aiid  *'  an  address  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States,"  and  appointed  a  committee  of  two  of  its  members  from  each 
State  and  of  one  from  each  Territory  and  one  from  the  District  of  Columbia 
to  wait  upon  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  present  to  him  a  copy  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  convention;  that  on  the  ISth  day  of  said  month  of 
August  this  committee  waited  upon  the  President  of  the  United  States  at  the 
Executive  Mansion,  and  was  received  by  him  in  one  of  the  rooms  thereof,  and  by 
their  chairman,  Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson,  then  and  now  a  senator  of  the  United 
States,  acting  and  speaking  in  their  behalf,  presented  a  copy  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  convention,  and  addressed  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  a  speech, 
of  which  a  copy  (according  to  a  published  report  of  the  same,  and,  as  the 
respondent  believes,  substantially  a  correct  report)  is  hereto  annexed  as  a  part  of 
this  answer,  and  marked  Exhibit  C. 

That  thereu))on,  and  in  reply  to  the  address  of  said  committee  by  their  chair- 
man, this  respondent  addressed  the  said  committee  so  waiting  upon  him  in  one 
of  the  rooms  of  tlie  Executive  Mansion;  and  this  respondent  believes  that  tliis 
his  address  to  said  committee  is  the  occasion  referred  to  in  the  first  specification 
of  the  tenth  article;  but  this  respondent  does  not  admit  that  the  passages  therein 
set  forth,  as  if  extracts  from  a  speech  or  address  of  this  respondent  upon  said 
occasion,  correctly  or  justly  present  his  speech  or  address  upon  said  occasion, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  49 

but,  on  the  contrary,  this  respondent  demands  and  insists  that  if  this  honorable 
court  shall  deem  the  said  article  and  the  said  specification  thereof  to  contain 
allegation  of  matter  cognizable  hy  this  honorable  court  as  a  high  misdemeanor 
in  office,  within  the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  shall  receive  or  allow  proof  in  support  of  the  same,  that  proof  shall  be 
required  to  be  made  of  the  actual  speech  and  address  of  this  respondent  on  said 
occasion,  which  this  respondent  denies  that  said  article  and  specification  contain 
or  correctly  or  justly  represent. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering  the  tenth  article  and  the  specifications 
thereof,  says  that  at  Cleveland,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  on  the  3d  day  of 
September,  in  the  year  1S66,  he  was  attended  by  a  large  assemblage  of  his 
fellow-citizens,  and  in  deference  and  obedience  to  their  call  and  demand  he 
addressed  them  upon  matters  of  public  and  political  consideration;  and  this 
respondent  believes  that  said  occasion  and  address  are  referred  to  in  the 
second  specification  of  the  tenth  article;  but  this  respondent  does  not  admit  that 
the  passages  therein  set  forth,  as  if  extracts  from  a  speech  of  this  respondent  on 
said  occasion,  correctly  or  justly  present  his  speech  or  address  upon  said  occa- 
sion ;  but,  on  the  contraiy,  this  respondent  demands  and  insists  that  if  this 
honorable  court  shall  deem  the  said  article  and  the  second  specification  thereof 
to  contain  allegation  of  matter  cognizable  by  this  honorable  court  as  a  high  mis- 
dem'-anor  in  office,  within  the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  shall  receive  or  allow  proof  in  sixpport  of  the  same,  that  proof 
shall  be  required  to  be  made  of  the  actual  speech  and  address  of  this  respondent 
on  said  occasion,  which  this  respondent  denies  that  said  article  and  specification 
contain  or  correctly  or  justly  represent. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering  the  tenth  article  and  the  specifications 
thereof,  says  that  at  St.  Louis,  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  on  the  8th  day  of 
September,  in  the  year  1S66,  he  was  attended  by  a  numerous  assemblage  of  his 
fellow-citizens,  and  in  deference  and  obedience  to  their  call  and  demand  he 
addressed  them  upon  matters  of  public  and  political  consideration;  and  this 
respondent  believes  that  said  occasion  and  address  are  referred  to  in  the  third 
specification  of  the  tenth  article;  but  this  respondent  does  not  admit  that  the 
passages  thei-ein  set  forth,  as  if  extracts  from  a  speech  of  this  respondent  on  said 
occasion,  correctly  or  justly  present  his  speech  or  address  upon  said  occasion ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  this  respondent  demands  and  insists  that  if  this  honorable 
court  shall  deem  the  said  article  and  the  said  third  specification  thereof  to  contain 
allegation  of  matter  cognizable  by  this  honorable  court  as  a  high  misdemoanor 
in  office,  within  the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  tjie  United  States, 
and  shall  receive  or  allow  proof  in  support  of  the  same,  that  proof  shall  be 
required  to  be  made  of  the  actual  speech  and  address  of  this  respondent  on  said 
occasion,  which  this  respondent  denies  that  the  said  article  and  specification  con- 
tain or  correctly  or  justly  represent. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering  the  tenth  article,  protesting  that  he 
has  not  been  unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office,  or  of  the  harmony  or 
courtesies  which  ought  to  exist  and  be  maintained  between  the  executive  and 
legislative  branches  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  denies  that  he  has 
ever  intended  or  di^signed  to  set  aside  the  rightful  authority  or  powers  of  Con- 
gress, or  attempted  to  bring  into  disgrace,  ridicule,  hatred,  contempt,  or  reproach 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  or  either  branch  thereof,  or  to  impair  or 
destroy  the  regard  or  respect  of  all  or  any  of  the  good  people  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Congress  or  the  rightful  legislative  power  thereof,  or  to  excite  the 
odium  or  resentment  of  all  or  any  of  the  good  people  of  the  United  States  against 
Congress  and  the  laws  by  it  duly  and  constitutionally  enacted.  This  respond- 
ent farther  says,  that  at  all  times  he  has,  in  his  official  acts  as  President,  i-ecog- 
nized  the  authority  of  the  several  Congresses  of  the  United  States  as  constituted 
4  I  P 


60  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

and  organized  during  his  administration  of  the  office  of  President  of  the  United 
States. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering,  says  that  he  has,  from  time  to  time, 
under  his  constitutional  right  and  duty  as  President  of  the  United  States,  com- 
municated to  Congress  his  views  and  opinions  in  regard  to  such  acts  or  resolu- 
tions thereof  as,  being  submitted  to  him  as  President  of  the  United  States  in 
pursuance  of  the  Constitution,  seemed  to  this  respondent  to  require  such  com- 
munications ;  and  he  has,  from  time  to  time,  in  the  exercise  of  tliat  freedom  of 
speech  which  belongs  to  him  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and,  in  his  ])olitical 
relations  as  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  is 
upon  tit  occasions  a  duty  of  the  highest  obligation,  expressed  to  his  fellow-citizens 
his  views  and  opinions  respecting  the  measures  and  proceedings  of  Congress  ;  and 
that  in  such  addresses  to  his  fellow-citizens  and  in  such  his  communications  to 
Congress  he  has  expressed  his  views,  opinions,  and  judgment  of  and  concerning 
the  actual  constitution  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress  without  representation 
therein  of  certain  States  of  the  Union,  and  of  the  effect  that  in  wisdom  and 
justice,  in  the  opinion  and  judgment  of  this  respondent.  Congress,  in  its  legisla- 
tion and  proceedings,  should  give  to  this  political  circumstance  ;  and  whatsoever 
he  has  thus  communicated  to  Congress  or  addressed  to  his  fellow-citizens  or  any 
assemblage  thereof,  this  respondent  says  was  and  is  within  and  according  to  his 
right  and  privilege  as  an  American  citizen  and  his  right  and  duty  as  President 
of  the  United  States. 

And  this  respondent,  not  waiving  or  at  all  disparaging  his  right  of  freedom  of 
opinion  and  of  freedom  of  speech,  as  hereinbefore  or  hereinafter  more  particularly 
sef  forth,  but  claiming  and  insisting  upon  the  same,  further  answering  the  said 
tenth  article,  says  that  the  views  and  opinions  expressed  by  tiiis  respondent  in 
his  said  addre,sses  to  the  assemblages  of  his  fellow-citizens,  as  in  said  article  or 
in  this  answer  thereto  mentioned,  are  not  and  were  not  intended  to  be  other  or 
different  from  those  expressed  by  him  in  his  communications  to  Congress — that 
the  eleven  States  lately  in  insuirection  never  had  ceased  to  be  States  of  the  Union, 
and  that  they  were  then  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress  by  h)yal  repre- 
sentatives and  senators  as  fully  as  the  otiier  States  of  the  Union,  and  that,  con- 
sequently, the  Congress,  as  then  constituted,  was  not,  in  fact,  a  Congress  of  all 
the  States,  but  a  Congress  of  only  a  part  of  the  States.  This  respondent, 
always  protesting  against  the  unauthoi-ized  exclusion  thei-efrora  of  the  said  eleven 
States,  nevertheless  gave  his  assent  to  all  laws  passed  by  said  Congress  which 
did  not,  in  his  opinion  and  judgment,  violate  the  Constitution,  exercising  his 
constitutional  authority  of  returning  bills  to  said  Congress  with  his  objections 
when  they  appeared  to  him  to  be  imconstitutional  or  inexpedient. 

And,  further,  this  respondent  has  also  expressed  the  opinion,  both  in  his  com- 
munications to  Congress  and  in  his  addresses  to  the  peo})le,  that  the  policy 
adn])ted  by  Congress  in  reference  to  the  States  lately  in  insurrection  did  not 
tend  to  peace,  harmony,  and  union,  but,  on  the  contrary,  did  tend  to  disunion 
and  the  permanent  disruption  of  the  States  ;  and  that  in  following  its  said 
policy,  laws  had  been  passed  by  Congress  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  government,  and  which  tended  to  consolidation  and  di.'spotism  ; 
and,  such  being  his  deliberate  opinions,  he  would  have  felt  himself  uimiindful 
of  the  high  duties  of  his  otHce  if  he  had  failed  to  express  them  in  his  connnuni- 
cations  to  Congress,  or  in  his  addresses  to  the  peo])le  when  called  upon  by  them 
to  express  his  opinions  on  matters  of  public  and  political  consideration. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering  the  tenth  article,  says  that  he  has 
always  claimed  and  insisted,  and  now  claims  and  insists,  that  both  in  his  per- 
sonal and  private  capacity  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  in  the  political 
relations  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  tp  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  whoso  servant,  under  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  Constilution 
of  the  Uuited  States,  the  President  of  the  United  States  is,  and  should  always 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  51 

remain,  tin?  respondent  had  and  has  tlie  full  right,  and  in  hit'  office  of  President 
of  the  United  States  is  held  to  the  high  duty  of  forming,  and,  on  ill  occasions, 
expressing,  opinions  of  and  concerning  the  legislation  of  Congress,  proposed 
or  completed,  in  respect  of  its  wisdom,  expediency,  justice,  worthiness,  objects, 
purposes,  and  public  and  political  motives  and  tendencies;  and  within  and  as  a 
part  of  such  right  and  duty  to  form,  and  on  fit  occasions  to  expross,  opinions  of 
and  concerning  the  public  character  and  conduct,  views,  purposes,  objects, 
motives,  and  tendencies  of  all  m 'U  engaged  in  the  public  service,  as  well  in 
Congress  as  otherwise,  and  under  no  other  rules  or  limits  upon  tliis  right  of 
freedom  of  opinion  and  of  freedom  of  speech,  or  of  responsibility  and  amena- 
bility for  the  actual  exercise  of  such  freedom  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  speech, 
than  attend  upon  such  rights  and  their  exercise  on  the  part  of  all  other  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  and  on  the  part  of  all  their  public  servants. 

And  thi.s  respondent,  further  answering  said  tenth  article,  says  that  the 
several  occasions  on  which,  as  is  alleged  in  the  several  specifications  of  said 
article,  this  respondent  addressed  his  fellow-citizens  on  subjects  of  public  and 
political  consideration,  were  not,  nor  was  any  one  of  them,  souglit  or  planned 
by  this  respondent;  but,  on  the  contrary,  each  of  said  occasions  arose  upon  the 
exercise  of  a  lawful  and  accustomed  rigbt  of  the  people  of  the  Uuitcid  States  to 
call  upon  their  public  servants  and  expi'ess  to  them  tlieir  opinions,  wishes,  and 
feelings  upon  matters  of  public  and  political  consideration,  and  to  invite  from 
such,  their  public  seiwants,  an  expression  of  their  opinions,  views,  and  feelings 
on  matters  of  public  and  political  consideration  ;  and  this  respondent  claims  and 
insists  before  this  honorable  court,  and  before  all  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  that  of  or  concerning  this  his  right  of  freedom  of  opinion  and  of  freedom 
of  speech,  and  this  his  exercise  of  such  rights  on  all  matters  of  public  and 
political  consideration,  and  in  respect  of  all  public  servants  or  persons  whatso- 
ever engaged  in  or  connected  therewith,  this  respondent,  as  a  citizen  or  as 
President  of  the  United  States,  is  not  subject  to  question,  inquisition,  impeach 
ment,  or  inculpation  in  any  form  or  manner  whatsoever. 

And  this  respondent  says  that  neither  the  said  tenth  article  nor  any  specifica- 
tion thereof,  nor  any  allegation  therein  contained,  touches  or  relates  to  any  offi- 
cial act  or  doing  of  this  respondent  in  the  office  of  Presidtmt  of  the  United 
States  or  in  the  discharge  of  any  of  its  constitutional  or  legal  duties  or  respon- 
sibilities ;  but  said  article  and  the  specifications  and  allegations  thereof,  wholly 
and  in  every  part  thereof,  question  only  the  discretion  or  propriety  of  freedom 
of  opinion  or  freedom  of  speech  ;xs  exercised  by  this  respondent  as  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  in  his  personal  right  and  capacity,  and  without  allegation  or 
imputation  against  this  respondent  of  the  violation  of  any  law  of  the  United 
States  touching  or  relating  to  freedom  of  speech  or  its  exercise  by  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  or  by  this  respondent  as  one  of  the  said  citizens  or  other- 
wise ;  and  he  denies  that,  by  reason  of  any  matter  in  said  article  or  its  specifi- 
cataons  alleged,  he  has  said  or  done  anything  indecent  or  unbecoming  in  the 
Chief  JIagistrate  of  the  United  States,  or  that  he  has  brought  the  high  office 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  into  contempt,  ridicule,  or  disgrace,  or 
that  he  has  committed  or  has  been  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  othce. 

ANSWER  TO  ARTICLE  XI. 

And  in  answer  to  the  elcA'-enth  article,  this  respondent  denies  that  on  the  ]  8th 
day  of  August,  in  the  year  186G,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  he  did,  by  public  speech  or  otherwise,  declare  or  affirm,  in  substance 
or  at  all,  that  the  thirty-ninth  Congress  of  the  United  States  was  not  a  Cou 
gress  of  the  United  States  authorized  by  the  Constitution  to  e.xercise  legisl.v 
tive  power  under  the  same,  or  that  he  did  then  and  there  declare  or  affirm  that 
tte  said  thirty-ninth  Congress  was  a  Congress  of  only  part  of  the  States  in  any 


52  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

sense  or  meaning  other  than  that  ten  States  of  the  Union  were  denied  repre- 
sentation tliercin  ;  or  that  lie  made  any  or  either  of  the  declarations  or  affirma- 
tions in  tins  behalf,  in  the  said  article  alleged,  as  denying  or  intending  to  deny 
that  the  legislation  of  said  thirty-ninth  Congress  was  valid  or  obligatory  upon 
this  respondent,  except  so  far  as  this  respondent  saw  fit  to  approve  the  same ; 
and  as  to  the  allegation  in  said  article,  that  he  did  thereby  intend  or  mean  to 
be  understood  that  the  said  Congress  had  not  power  to  propose  amendments  to 
the  Constitution,  this  respondent  says  that  in  said  address  he  said  nothing  in 
reference  to  the  subject  of  amendments  of  the  Constitution,  nor  was  the  ques- 
tion of  the  competency  of  the  said  Congress  to  propose  such  amendments, 
without  the  participation  of  said  excluded  States,  at  the  time  of  said  address, 
in  any  way  mentioned  or  considered  or  referred  to  by  this  i-espondent,  nor  in 
Avhat  he  did  say  had  he  any  intent  regarding  the  same,  and  he  denies  the  alle- 
gation so  made  to  the  contrary  thereof.  But  this  respondent,  iu  further  answer 
to,  and  iu  respect  of,  the  said  allegations  of  the  said  eleventh  article  herein- 
before traversed  and  denied,  claims  and  insists  upon  his  personal  and  official 
right  of  freedom  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  speech,  and  his  duty  in  his  political 
relations  as  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  people  of  the  United  States 
iu  the  exercise  of  such  freedom  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  speech,  in  the  same 
manner,  form,  and  effect  as  he  has  in  this  behalf  stated  the  same  in  his  answer 
to  the  said  tenth  article,  and  with  the  same  effect  as  if  he  here  repeated  the 
same ;  and  he  further  claims  and  insists,  as  in  said  answer  to  said  tenth  article 
he  has  claimed  and  insisted,  that  he  is  not  subject  to  question,  inquisition, 
impeachment,  or  inculpation,  in  any  form  or  manner,  of  or  concerning  such 
rights  of  freedom  of  opinion  or  freedom  of  speech  or  his  said  alleged  exercise 
thereof. 

And  this  respondent  further  denies  that  on  the  2 1st  day  of  February,  in  the 
year  1868,  or  at  any  other  time,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  in  pursuance  of  any  such  dechiratiou  as  is  in  that  behalf  in  said 
eleventh  article  alleged,  or  otherwise,  he  did  unlawfully,  and  in  disregard  of  the 
requirement  of  the  Constitution  that  he  should  take  care  that  the  laws  should 
be  faithfully  executed,  attempt  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "  An 
act  regulatnig  the  teunre  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1867,  by 
unlawfully  devising  or  contriving,  or  attempting  to  devise  or  contrive,  means  by 
which  he  should  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  forthwith  resuming  the  func- 
tions of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War ;  or  by  unlawfully  devising  or 
contriving,  or  attempting  to  devise  or  contrive,  means  to  prevent  the  execution 
of  an  act  entitled  "  An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1868,  and  for  other  purposes,"  approved 
March  2,  1867,  or  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  pro- 
vide for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,"  passed  March  2, 
1867. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering  the  said  eleventh  article,  sa^'s  that  he 
has,  in  his  answer  to  the  first  article,  set  forth  in  detail  the  acts,  steps,  and  pro- 
ceedings done  and  taken  by  this  respondent  to  and  toward  or  in  the  matter  of 
the  suspension  or  removal  of  the  said  Kdwiu  M.  Stanton  in  or  from  the  office  of 
Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  with  the  times,  modes,  circumstances, 
intents,  views,  purposes,  and  opinions  of  ofiicial  obligation  and  duty  under  and 
with  which  such  acts,  steps,  and  proceedings  were  done  and  taken;  and  he  makes 
answer  to  this  eleventh  article  of  the  matters  in  his  answer  to  the  first  article, 
pertaining  to  the  suspension  or  removal  of  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  to  the  same 
intent  and  effect  as  if  they  were  here  repeated  and  set  forth. 

And  this  respondent,  further  answering  the  said  eleventh  article,  denies  that 
by  means  or  reason  of  anything  in  said  aiticlc  alleged,  this  respondent,  as  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States,  did,  on  the  2l8t  day  of  February,  1868,  or  at  any 
other  day  or  time,  commit,  or  that  he  was  guilty  of,  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  53 

And  tbis  respondent,  further  answering  the  said  eleventh  article,  says  that  the 
same  and  the  matters  therein  contained  do  not  cliarge  or  allege  the  commission 
of  any  act  whatever  by  this  respondent,  in  his  office  of  President  of  the  United 
States,  nor  the  omission  by  this  respondent  of  any  act  of  official  obligation  or 
dnty  in  his  office  of  President  of  the  United  States  ;  nor  does  the  said  article 
nor  the  matters  therein  contained  name,  designate,  describe,  or  define  any  act  or 
mode  or  form  of  attempt,  device,  contrivance,  or  means,  or  of  attempt  at  device, 
contrivance,  or  means,  whereby  this  respondent  can  know  or  understand  what  act 
or  mode  or  form  of  attempt,  device,  contrivance  or  means,  or  uf  attempt  at  device, 
contrivance,  or  means,  are  impnted  to  or  charged  against  this  respondent,  in  his 
office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  or  intended  so  to  be,  or  whereby  this 
respondent  can  more  fully  or  definitely  make  answer  unto  the  said  article  than 
he  hereby  does. 

And  this  respondent,  in  submitting  to  this  honorable  court  this  his  answer  to 
the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  against  him,  respectfully  reserves  leave 
to  amend  and  add  to  the  same  from  time  to  time,  as  may  become  necessary  or 
proper,  and  when  and  as  such  necessity  and  propriety  shall  appear. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Henry  Stanbery, 

B.  R.  Curtis, 

Tho.mas  a.  R.  Nelson, 

William  M.  Evarts, 

W.  S.  Groesbeck, 

Of  Counsel. 


Exhibit  A. 

Message,  March  2,  1867. 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

I  have  carefully  examined  the  bill  to  regulate  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices. 
The  material  portion  of  the  bill  is  contained  in  the  first  section,  and  is  of  the 
effect  following,  namely  : 

That  every  person  holding;  any  civil  office  to  which  he  has  been  appointed  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  eousent  of  the  Senate,  and  every  person  who  shall  hereai'ter  be  appointed  to  any 
such  office,  and  shall  become  duly  qualified  to  act  therein,  is  and  shall  be  entitled  to  hold 
such  office  riutil  a  successor  shall  have  been  appointed  by  the  President,  with  tlie  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate,  and  duly  qualified  ;  and  that  the  Secretaries  of  State,  of  the  Treasury, 
of  War,  of  the  Navy,  and  of  the  Interior,  the  Postmaster  General,  and  the  Attorney  General, 
shall  hold  their  offices  respectively  for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President  by  whom  they 
may  have  been  appointed,  and  for  one  mouth  thereafter,  subject  to  removal  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

These  provisions  are  qualified  by  a  reservation  in  the  fourth  section,  "  that 
nothing  contained  in  the  bill  shall  be  construed  to  extend  the  term  of  any  office 
the  duratioti  of  which  is  limited  by  law."  In  effect  the  bill  provides  that  the 
President  shall  not  remove  from  their  places  any  of  the  civil  officers  whose  terms 
of  service  are  not  limited  by  law  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States.  The  bill,  in  this  respect,  conflicts,  in  my  judgment,  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  question,  as  Congress  is  well  aware, 
is  by  no  means  a  new  one.  That  the  power  of  removal  is  constitutionally  vested 
in  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  a  principle  which  has  been  not  more 
distinctly  declared  by  judicial  authority  and  judicial  commentators  than  it  ha.=! 
been  uniformly  practiced  upon  by  the  legislative  and  executive  departments  of 
the  government.  The  question  arose  in  the  House  of  llepresentatives  so  early 
as  the  16th  day  of  June,  1789,  on  the  bill  for  establishing  an  executive  depart- 
ment, denominated  "The  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs."     The  first  clause  of 


54  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  bill,  after  recapitulating  the  functioiiB  of  that  officer  and.  defining  his  dutie?, 
had  these  words  :  "To  be  removable  from  office  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States."  It  was  moved  to  strike  out  these  words,  and  the  motion  was  sustained 
with  great  ability  and  vigor.  It  was  insisted  that  the  President  could  not  con- 
stitutionally exercise  the  power  of  removal  exclusive  of  the  Senate ;  that  the 
Federalist  so  interpreted  the  Constitution  when  arguing  for  its  adoption  by  the 
several  States;  that  the  Constitution  had  nowhere  given  the  President  power  of 
removal,  either  expressly  or  by  strong  implication ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  had. 
distinctly  provided  for  removals  from  office  b}'  impeachment  only.  A  constnic- 
tiou  which  denied  the  power  of  removal  by  tlu^  President  was  further  maintained 
by  arguments  drawn  from  the  danger  of  the  abuse  of  the  power;  irom  the  sup- 
posed tendtucy  of  an  exposure  of  public  officers  to  capricious  removal,  to  im- 
pair the  efficiency  of  the  civil  service  ;  from  the  alleged  injustice  and  hardship 
of  displacing  incumbents,  dependent  upon  their  official  stations,  without  sufficient 
consideralion  ;  from  a  supposed  want  of  responsibilty  on  the  jiart  of  the  Presi- 
dent, and  from  an  imagined  defect  of  guarantees  against  a  vicious  President,  who 
might  incline  to  abuse  the  power. 

On  the  other  hand,  an  exclusive  powei-  of  removal  by  the  President  was  de- 
fended as  a  true  exposition  of  the  text  of  the  Constitution.  It  was  maintained 
that  there  are  certain  causes  for  which  persons  ought  to  be  removed  from  office 
without  being  guilty  of  treason,  bribery,  or  malfeasance,  and  that  the  nature  of 
things  demands  that  it  should  be  so.  "  Sup])ose,"  it  was  said,  "  a  man  becomes 
insane  by  the  visitation  of  God,  and  is  likely  to  ruin  our  affairs,  are  the  hands 
of  government  to  be  confined  from  warding  ofi"  the  evil?  Suppose  a  person  in 
office  not  possessing  the  talents  he  was  judged  to  have  at  the  time  of  the  ap- 
pointment, is  the  error  not  to  be  corrected'?  Suppose  be  acquire  vicious  habits 
and  incurable  indolence,  or  totally  neglect  the  duties  of  his  office,  which  shall 
work  mischief  to  the  public  welfare,  is  there  no  way  to  arrest  the  threatened 
danger  ]  Suppose  he  become  odious  and  unpopular  by  reason  of  the  measures 
he  pursues — and  this  he  may  do  without  committingany  positive  offence  against 
the  law — must  he  preserve  his  office  in  despite  of  the  popular  will?  Suppose  him 
grasping  for  his  own  aggrandizement  and  the  elevation  of  his  connections  by 
every  means  short  of  the  treason  defined  by  the  Constitution,  hurrying  your 
affairs  to  the  precipice  of  destruction,  endangering  your  domestic  tranquillity, 
plundering  you  of  the  means  of  defence,  alienating  the  affections  of  your  allies, 
and  promoting  the  spirit  of  discord,  must  the  tardy,  tedious,  desultory  road 
by  way  of  impeachment  be  travelled  to  overtake  the  man  who,  barely  confining 
himself  within  the  letter  of  the  law,  is  employed  in  "  drawing  off  the  vital  prin- 
ciple of  the  government?"  The  nature  of  things,  the  gre;it  objects  of  society, 
the  express  objects  of  the  Constitution  itself  require  that  this  thing  should  be 
otherwise.  To  unite  the  Senate  with  the  President  "  in  tlu^  exercise  of  the 
power,"  it  was  said,  "  would  involve  us"  in  the  most  serious  difficulty.  "  Sup- 
posp  a  discovery  of  any  of  these  events  should  take  plac'e  when  the  Senate  is 
not  in  session,  how  is  the  remedy  to  be  applied  ?  The  evil  could  be  avoided  in 
no  other  way  than  by  the  Senate  sitting  always."  In  regard  to  the  danger  of 
the  power  being  abused  if  exercised  by  one  man,  it  was  said  "  that  the  danger 
is  as  great  with  respect  to  the  Swiate,  who  are  assembled  from  various  jiarts  of 
the  continent,  with  different  impressions  and  o[)inions  ;"  that  such  a  body  is  more 
likely  to  misuse  the  power  of  removal  than  the  man  whom  the  united  voice  of 
America  calls  to  the  presid(;ntial  chair.  As  the  nature  of  government  requires 
the  power  of  removal,  it  was  maintained  "  that  it  should  be  exercised  in  this 
way  by  the  hand  capable  of  exerting  itself  with  effect,  and  the  power  must  be 
conferred  on  the  President  by  the  Constitution  as  the  executive  officer  of  the 
goverumenl."  Mr.  Madison,  whose  adverse  opinion  in  the  Fedeialist  had  been 
relied  upon  by  those  who  denied  the  exclusive  power,  now   participated  in  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  5$ 

debate.     ITc  declared  tliat  be  bad  reviewed  bis  former  opinions,  and  be  snmoied 
up  tbe  wbole  case  as  follows : 

The  Constitution  affirms  tluit  the  executive  power  is"  vested  in  the  President.  Are  there 
exceptions  to  this  proposition  ?  Yes,  there  are.  Tlio  Constitution  says  tluit  in  appoiiitincf  to 
otBce  the  Senate  shall  be  associated  with  tlie  President,  unless  in  the  case  of  inferior  oftice«"s, 
when  the  hiw  sliall  otlicrwisc  direct.  Have  we  (that  is,  Conp^ress)  a  rig'ht  to  extend  this 
execplion  ?  I  believe  not.  If  the  Constitution  iuxs  invested  all  executive  power  in  the  Presi- 
dent, I  return  to  assert  tliat  tlie  legislature  has  no  rig-ht  to  diminish  or  modify  his  executive 
authority.  The  question  now  resolves  itself  into  this :  is  there  pow(>r  of  displacinc^  an 
executive  power?  I  conceive  tliat  if  any  power  whatever  is  in  the  Executive  it  is  the  power 
of  appointiufj',  ovorseeinfr,  and  controllint^  those  wlio  execute  the  laws.  If  the  Consiitutioa 
had  not  qualitied  the  ]iower  of  the  President  in  appointing-  to  oftice  by  associating  the  Senate 
with  him  in  that  business,  would  it  not  be  clear  that  he  would  have  the  right  by  virtue  of 
his  executive  power  to  make  such  appointment?  Should  we  be  authorized,  in  defiance  of 
that  clause  in  the  Constitution — :"the  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  the  President" — to 
unite  the  Senate  with  the  President  in  the  appointment  to  office?  I  conceive  not.  It  is 
admitted  that  we  should  not  be  authorized  to  do  this.  I  think  it  may  be  disputed  whether  we 
have  a  right  to  associate  them  iu  removing  persons  from  office,  the  one  power  being  as  much 
of  an  executive  nature  as  the  other ;  and  the  first  is  authorized  by  being  excepted  out  of  the 
general  rule  established  by  the  Constitution  in  these  words :  "  The  executive  power  shall  be 
vested  iu  the  President.  " 

Tbe  question  tbus  ably  and  exbanstively  argued  was  decided  by  tbe  House 
of  Representatives,  by  a  vote  of  tbirty-four  to  twenty,  in  favor  of  tbe  principle 
tbat  tbe  executive  poAver  of  removal  is  vested  by  tbe  Constitution  in  tbe  Exec- 
utive, and  in  tbe  Senate  by  tbe  casting  vote  nf  tbe  Vice-President.  Tbe  ques- 
tion bas  often  been  raised  in  subsequent  times  of  bigb  excitement,  and  tbe 
practice  of  the  government  bas  nevertbeless  conformed  in  all  cases  to  tbe  deci- 
sion tbus  early  made. 

Tbe  question  was  revived  during  tbe  administration  of  President  Jackson, 
wbo  made,  as  is  well  recollected,  a  very  large  number  of  removals,  wbicli  were 
made  an  occasion  of  close  and  rigorous  scrutiny  and  remonstrance.  Tbe  sub- 
ject was  long  and  earnestly  debated  in  tbe  Senate,  and  tbe  early  construction  ef 
tbe  Constitution  was  nevertbeless  freely  accepted  as  binding  and  conclusive 
upon  Congress. 

Tbe  question  came  before  tbe  Supreme  Court  of  tbe  United  States  in  Jan- 
uary, 1S39,  ex  parte  Heenan.  It  was  declared  by  tbe  coin-t  on  tbat  occasion 
tbat  tbe  power  of  removal  from  office  was  a  subject  mucb  disputed,  and  upon 
wbicli  a  great  diversity  of  opinion  was  entertained  in  tbe  early  bistory  of  tbe 
government.  This  related,  bowever,  to  tbe  power  of  tbe  President  to  remove 
officers  appointed  witb  tbe  concurrence  of  tbe  Senate,  and  tbe  great  question 
was  wbellier  tbe  removal  was  to  be  by  tbe  President  alone  or  witb  tbe  concur- 
rence of  the  Senate,  botb  constituting  tbe  ajjpointing  power.  No  one  denied 
tbe  power  of  tbe  President  and  Senate  jointly  to  remove  wbere  tbe  tenure  of 
tbe  office  was  not  fixed  by  the  Constitution,  which  was  a  full  recognition  of  tbe 
principle  tbat  tbe  power  of  removal  was  incident  to  tbe  power  of  appointment ; 
but  it  was  very  early  adopted  as  a  practical  construction  of  tbe  Constitution  tbat 
this  power  was  vested  in  the  President  alone,  and  such  would  appear  to  have 
been  the  legislative  construction  of  tbe  Constitution,  for  in  tbe  organization  of 
tbe  three  great  Departments  of  State,  War,  and  Treasury,  in  1789,  provision 
was  made  for  the  appointment  of  a  subordinate  officer  by  tbe  head  of  tbe  depart- 
ment, wbo  should  have  charge  of  the  records,  books,  and  papers  appertaining  to 
tbe  office  when  tbe  head  of  the  department  should  be  removed  from  office  by 
tbe  President  of  tbe  United  States.  When  tbe  Navy  Department  was  estab- 
lished, in  tbe  year  1798,  provision  was  made  for  tbe  charge  and  custody  of  the 
books,  records,  and  documents  of  tbe  department  in  case  of  vacancy  in  tbe 
office  of  Secretary,  by  removal  or  otherwise.  It  is  not  here  said  "  by  removal 
of  tbe  President,"  as  is  done  witb  respect  to  the  beads  of  tbe  other  depart- 
ments ;  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  holds  his  office  with  the  same  tenure 
as  the  other  Secretaries,  and  is  removable  bv  the  President.     The   chancre  of 


56  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

plivaseology  arose  probably  from  its  having  become  the  settled  and  well-uuder- 
stood  construction  of  the  Constitution  that  the  power  of  removal  was  vested  in 
the  President  alone  in  such  cases,  although  the  appointment  of  the  officer  is  by 
the  President  and  Senate.     (13  Peters,  page  139.) 

Our  most  distinguished  and  accepted  commentators  upon  tlie  Constitution 
concur  in  the  construction  thus  early  given  by  Congress,  and  thus  sanctioned 
by  the  Supreme  Court.  After  a  full  analysis  of  the  congressional  debate  to 
which  I  have  referred,  Mr.  Justice  Story  comes  to  this  conclusion  : 

After  a  most  animated  disenssiou.  the  vot6  fiiiall.y  taken  in  tlie  House  of  Representatives 
■was  tiftirmative  of  the  power  of  removal  in  tlie  President  without  any  co-operation  of  the 
Senate  hy  the  vote  of  ol  members  against  20.  In  the  Senate  the  clause  in  the  bill  affirming 
the  power  was  carried  by  the  castiii<2:  vote  of  the  Vice-President.  That  the  iiual  decision  of 
this  question  so  made  was  greatly  iuilueuced  by  the  exalted  character  of  the  President  tbeu 
in  office  was  asserted  at  tlie  time,  and  has  always  been  believed :  yet  the  doctrine  was 
opposed  as  well  as  supported  by  the  hitrhest  talent  and  patriotism  of  the  country.  The  pub- 
lic have  acquiesced  in  this  decision,  and  it  constitutes  perhaps  the  most  e.xtraordiuary  case 
in  the  history  of  the  government  of  a  power  conferred  by  implication  on  the  Executive  by 
the  assent  of  a  bare  majority  of  Congress  which  has  not  been  questioned  on  many  other 
occasions. 

The  commentator  adds : 
Nor  is  this  general  acquiescence  and  silence  without  a  satisfactory  explanation. 

Chancellor  Kent's  remarks  on  the  subject  are  as  follows  :  "  On  the  first  organi- 
zation of  the  government  it  was  made  a  question  whether  the  power  of  removal 
in  case  of  officers  appointed  to  hold  at  pleasure  resided  nowhere  but  in  the 
body  which  appointed,"  and,  of  course,  whether  the  consent  of  the  Senate  was 
not  requisite  to  remove.  This  was  the  construction  given  to  the  Constitution 
while  it  was  pending  for  ratification  before  the  State  conventions  by  the  author 
of  the  Federalist.  But  the  construction  which  was  given  to  the  Constitution 
by  Congress  after  great  consideration  and  discussion  was  different.  The  words 
of  the  act  (establishing  the  Treasury  Department)  are,  "and  whenever  the 
same  shall  be  removed  from  office  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  in 
any  case  of  vacancy  in  the  office,  the  assistant  shall  act."  This  amounted  to  a 
legi.<lative  construction  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  has  ever  since  been  acqui- 
esced in  and  acted  upon  as  a  decisive  authority  in  the  case. 

It  applies  equally  to  every  other  officer  of  the  government  appointed  by  the 
President  whose  term  of  duration  is  not  specially  declared.  It  is  supported  by 
the  weighty  reason  that  the  subordinate  officers  in  the  executive  department 
ought  to  hold  at  the  pleasure  of  the  head  of  the  department,  because  he  is 
invested  generally  with  the  executive  authority,  and  the  participation  in  that 
authority  by  the  Senate  was  an  exception  to  u  general  principle,  and  ought  to 
be  taken  strictly.  The  President  is  the  great  responsil)le  officer  for  the  execution 
of  the  law,  and  the  power  of  removal  was  incidental  to  that  duty,  and  might 
often  be  requisite  to  fulfil  it.  Thus  has  the  important  question  presented  by 
this  bill  been  settled,  in  the  language  of  the  late  Daniel  Webster,  (who,  while 
dissenting  from  it,  admitted  that  it  was  settled,)  by  construction,  settled  by  the 
jtractice  of  the  government,  and  settled  by  statute.  The  events  of  the  last  war 
furiiislied  a  practical  cf)nfirmation  of  the  wisdom  of  the  Constitution  as  it  lias 
liitlxTto  been  maintained  in  many  of  its  parts,  including  that  which  is  now  the 
subject  of  consideration.  ^Vhen  the  war  broke  out,  rebel  enemies,  traitors,  abet- 
tors, and  sympathizers  were  found  in  every  department  of  the  government,  as 
well  in  the  civil  service  as  in  the  land  and  naval  military  service.  They  were 
found  in  Congress  and  among  the  keepers  of  the  Capitol,  in  foreign  missions, 
in  each  and  all  of  the  executive  departments,  in  the  judicial  service,  in  the  Post 
Office,  and  among  the  agents  for  conducting  Indian  affairs,  and  upon  probable 
suspicion  they  were  promptly  displaced  by  my  predecessor,  go  far  as  they  held 
their  ofiices  under  executive  authority,  and  their  duties  were  confided  to  new 
and  loyal  successors.     No  complaints  agaiust  that  power  or  doubts  of  its  wisdom 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  57 

were  entertained  in  any  quarter.  I  sincerely  trust  and  believe  that  no  such  civil 
war  is  likely  to  occur  again.  I  cannot  doubt,  however,  that  in  whatever  form 
and  on  whatever  occasion  sedition  can  rise,  an  effort  to  hinder  or  embarrass  or 
defeat  the  legitimate  action  of  this  government,  whether  by  preventing  the  col- 
lection of  revenue  or  disturbing  the  public  peace,  or  separating  the  States,  or 
betraying  the  country  to  a  foreign  enemy,  the  power  of  removal  from  office  by 
ihe  Executive,  as  it  has  heretofore  existed  and  been  practiced,  will  be  found 
indispensable.  Under  these  circumstances,  as  a  depositary  of  the  executive 
authority  of  the  nation,  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  unite  with  Congress  in  reversing 
it  by  giving  my  ayiproval  of  the  bill. 

At  the  early  day  when  the  question  was  settled,  and,  indeed,  at  the  several 
periods  when  it  has  subsequently  been  agitated,  the  success  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  as  a  new  and  peculiar  system  of  a  free  representative 
government,  was  held  doubtful  in  other  countries,  and  was  even  a  si;bject  of 
patriotic  apprehension  among  the  American  people  themselves.  A  trial  of  nearly 
eighty  years,  through  the  vicissitudes  of  foreign  conflicts  and  of  civil  war,  is 
coniidently  regarded  as  having  extinguished  all  such  doubts  and  apprehensions 
for  the  future.  During  that  eighty  years  the  people  of  the  United  States  have 
enjoyed  a  measure  of  security,  peace,  prosperity,  and  happiness  never  surpassed 
by  any  nation.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  triumphant  success  of  the  Con- 
stitution is  due  to  the  wonderful  wisdom  with  which  the  functions  of  government 
were  distributed  among  the  three  principal  departments — the  legislative,  the 
executive,  and  the  judicial — and  to  the  fidelity  with  which  each  has  confined  itself 
or  been  confined  by  the  general  voice  of  the  nation  within  its  peculiar  and 
proper  sphere. 

While  a  just,  proper,  and  watchful  jealousy  of  executive  power  constantly 
prevails,  as  it  ought  ever  to  prevail,  yet  it  is  equally  true  that  an  efiicient 
Executive,  capable,  in  the  language  of  the  oath  prescribed  to  the  President,  of 
executing  the  laws  within  the  sphere  of  executive  action,  of  preserving,  pro- 
tecting, and  defending  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  is  an  indispensable 
security  for  tranquillity  at  homeland  peace,  honor,  and  safety  abroad.  Govern- 
ments have  been  erected  in  many  countries  upon  our  model.  If  one  or  many 
of  them  have  thus  far  failed  in  fully  securing  to  their  people  the  benefits  which 
we  have  derived  from  our  system,  it  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  their 
misfortune  has  resulted  from  their  unfortunate  failure  to  maintain  the  integrity 
of  each  of  the  three  great  departments  while  preserving  harmony  among  them  all. 

Having  at  an  early  period  accepted  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  the  executive 
oflice  in  the  sense  to  which  it  was  interpreted  with  the  concurrence  of  its 
founders,  I  have  found  no  sufiicient  grounds  in  the  arguments  now  opposed  to 
that  construction,  or  in  any  assumed  necessity  of  the  times,  for  changing  those 
opinions.  For  these  reasons  I  return  the  bill  to  the  Senate,  in  which  House  it 
originated,  for  the  further  consideration  of  Congress,  which  the  Constitution 
prescribes.  Insomuch  as  the  several  parts  of  the  bill  which  I  have  not  con- 
sidered are  matters  chiefly  of  detail,  and  are  based  atlogether  upon  the  theory 
of  the  Constitution  from  which  I  am  obliged  to  dissent,  I  have  not  thought  it 
necessary  to  examine  them  with  a  view  to  make  them  an  occasion  of  distinct 
and  special  objections.  Experience,  I  think,  has  shown  that  it  is  tlie  easiest,  as 
it  is  also  the  most  attractive,  of  studies  to  frame  constitutions  for  the  self-gov- 
ernment of  free  States  and  nations. 

But  I  think  experience  has  equally  shown  that  it  is  the  most  difiicult  of  all 
political  labors  to  preserve  and  maintain  such  free  constitutions  of  self-govern- 
ment when  once  happily  established.  I  know  no  other  way  in  which  they  can 
be  preserved  and  maintained,  except  by  a  constant  adherence  to  them  through 
the  various  vicissitudes  of  national  existence,  with  such  adaptations  as  may 
become  necessary,  always  to  be  effected,  however,  through  the  agencies  and  in  the 
forms  prescribed  in  the  original  constitutions  themselves.     Whenever  adminis- 


58  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

tration  f;iil?,  or  gocrus  to  fail,  in  securing  any  of  the  great  eiitl?  for  wliicli  repub- 
lican government  is  established,  the  proper  course  seems  to  be  to  renew  the 
original  spirit  and  forms  of  the  Constitution  itself. 

AXDREAY  JOHNSON. 
Washi.vgto.x,  March  2,  ]SG7, 


Exhibit  B. 
Message  to  tlic  Senate,  December  12,  1867. 

To  the  Senate  qftJie  United  States: 

On  the  12th  of  August  last  1  suspended  Mr.  Stanton  from  the  exercise  of  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  War,  and  on  the  same  day  designated  General  Grant  to 
act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  intcrwi. 

The  following  are  copies  of  the  Executive  orders : 

Executive  Maxsiox, 

Washington,  August  12,  1867. 

SiK  :  By  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  me,  as  President,  by  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws  of  the  Uuited  States,  you  are  hereby  suspended  from  otKee  as  Secretary  of  War, 
and  will  cease  to  exercise  any  and  all  functions  pertaining'  to  the  same. 

You  will  at  once  transfer  to  General  Ulysse.j  S.  Grant,  who  has  this  day  been  authorized 
and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  nd  interim ,  all  records,  books,  papers,  and  other 
public  property  now  in  your  custody  and  charge. 

Hon.  ED'iViN  M.  Stantok,   Secretary  of  War. 

Executive  Mansion, 
Washington,  D.  C,  August  12,  18G7. 
Sir  :  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having;  been  this  day  suspended  as  Secretary  of  War,  you 
are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered   to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  will  at 
once  enter  upon  the  di.scharge  of  the  duties  of  the  office. 

The  Secretary  of  War  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers, 
?nd  other  public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 
General  Ulysses  S.  Grant,  Washington,  D.  C. 

The  following  communication  was  received  fi'om  Mr.  Stanton : 

War  Department, 
Washington  City,  August  1'2,  1867. 

Sir:  Your  note  of  this  date  has  beeu  received,  informing  me  that  by  virtue  of  the  powers 
and  autliority  vested  in  you  as  President,  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States, 
I  am  suspended  from  office  as  Secretary  of  War,  and  will  cease  to  exercise  any  and  all 
functions  pertainin<j  to  the  same  ;  and  also  directing  mo  at  <uice  to  transfer  to  General 
Ulysses  S.  Grunt,  who  has  this  day  been  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of 
War  ad  iutcriin,  all  records,  books,  papers,  aud  other  public  property*iiow  in  uiy  custody 
and  charge. 

Under  a  sense  of  [tubllc  duty  I  am  compelled  to  deny  your  right,  xnidcr  the  Coustitulion 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  without 
legal  cause,  to  suspend  me  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  or  the  exercise  of  any  or 
all  functiiius  pertaining  to  the  same,  or  without  such  advice  and  consent  to  compel  me  to 
transfer  to  any  person  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  public  property  in  my  custody  as 
Secretary. 

But,  inasmuch  as  the  general  coTnuiaiuling  the  armies  of  the  United  States  has  been 
ajjpointed  ad  interim,  and  has  notiiied  me  that  he  has  accepted  the  aj)poiutmeut,  I  have  no 
alternative  but  to  submit,  under  protest,  to  superior  force. 

To  the  President. 

The  suspension  has  not  beeu  revoked,  and  the  business  of  tlie  War  Depart- 
ment is  conducted  by  the  Secretary  ad  'mterim.  Prior  to  the  date  of  this  sus- 
pension I  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  time  had  arrived  when  it  was 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  59 

proper  Mr.  Slautoii  should  retire  from  mj  cabinet.  The  mxitual  confidence  and 
accord  which  should  exist  in  such  a  relation  had  ceased.  I  supposed  that  Mr. 
Stanton  was  well  advised  that  his  continuance  in  the  cabinet  was  contrary  to 
my  wishes?,  for  1  had  repeatedly  given  him  so  to  understand  by  every  mode 
short  of  an  express  request  that  he  should  resign.  Having-  waited  full  time  for 
tlie  voluntary  action  of  Mr.  Stanton,  and  seeing  no  manifestation  on  his  part  of 
an  intention  to  resign,  I  addressed  him  the  following  note  on  the  5th  of 
August : 

Sir:  Public  considerafions  of  a  liigh  character  constrain  me  to  say  that  your  resignation 
as  Secretary  of  War  ^vill  be  accepted. 

To  this  note  I  received  the  following  reply : 

War  Depatment, 
Washington,  Auaiist  .'J,  1867. 
Sir:  Your  note  of  this  day  has  been  received,  statinf^  that  public  considerations  of  a  high 
cliaracter  constrain  you  to  say  that  my  resignation  as  Secretary  of  War  will  be  accepted. 

In  reply,  I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  public  considerations  of  a  high  character,  which 
alone  have  induced  me  to  continue  at  the  head  of  this  department,  constrain  me  not  to 
resign  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  before  the  next  meeting  of  Congress. 

EDWIN  M.  STANTON, 

Secret  dry  of  War. 

This  reply  of  Mr.  Stanton  was  not  merely  a  declination  of  compliance  with 
the  request  for  his  resignation  ;  it  was  a  defiance,  and  something  more.  Mr. 
Stanton  does  not  content  himself  with  assuming  that  public  considerations  bear- 
ing upon  his  continuance  in  office  form  as  fully  a  rule  of  action  for  himself  as 
for  the  President,  and  that  upon  so  delicate  a  question  as  the  fitness  of  an  offi- 
cer for  continuance  in  his  office,  the  officer  is  as  competent  an'd  as  impartial  to 
decide  as  his  superior,  who  is  responsible  for  his  conduct ;  but  he  goes  farther, 
and  plainly  intimates  what  he  means  by  "public  considerations  of  a  high  char- 
acter ;"  and  this  is  nothing  less  than  his  loss  of  confidence  in  his  superior.  He 
s!9,ys  that  these  public  considerations  have  "alone  induced  me  to  continue  at 
the  head  of  this  department,"  and  that  they  "  constrain  me  not  to  resign  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  War  before  the  next  meeting  of  Congress." 

This  language  is  very  significant.  Mr.  Stanton  holds  the  position  unwil- 
lingly. He  continues  in  office  only  under  a  sense  of  high  public  duty.  He  is 
ready  to  leave  when  it  is  safe  to  leave,  and  as  the  danger  he  apprehends  from 
his  removal  then  will  not  exist  when  -Congress  is  here,  he  is  constrained  to 
remain  during  the  interim.  "What,  then,  is  that  danger  which  can  only  be 
averted  by  the  presence  of  Mr.  Stanton  or  of  Congress?  Mr.  Stanton  does  not 
say  that  "public  considerations  of  a  high  character"  constrain  him  to  hold  on 
to  the  office  indefinitely.  He  does  not  say  that  no  one  other  than  himself  can 
at  any  time  be  found  to  take  his  place  and  perform  its  duties.  On  the  contrary, 
he  expresses  a  desire  to  leave  the  office  at  the  earliest  moment  consistent  with 
these  high  publk  considerations.  He  says  in  effect  that  while  Congress  is 
away  he  must  remain,  but  that  when  Congress  is  hei'e  he  can  go.  In  other 
words,  he  has  lost  confidence  in  the  President.  He  is  unwilling  to  leave  the 
War  Department  in  his  hands,  or  in  the  hands  of  any  one  the  President  may 
appoint  or  designate  to  perform  its  duties.  If  he  resigns,  the  President  may 
appoint  a  Secretary  of  War  that  Mr.  Stanton  does  not  approve.  Therefore, 
he  will  not  resign.  But  when  Congress  is  in  session  the  President  cannot 
appoint  a  Secretary  of  War  Avhich  the  Senate  does  not  approve.  Consequently, 
when  Congress  meets  Mr.  Stanton  is  ready  to  resign. 

Whatever  cogenc}'  these  "  considerations  "  may  have  had  upon  Mr.  Stanton, 
whatever  right  he  may  have  had  to  entertain  such  considerations,  whatever 
propriety  there  might  be  in  the  expression  of  them  to  others,  one  thing  is  cer- 
tain :  it  was  official  misconduct,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  to  parade  them  before  his 
superior  officer.     Upon  the  receipt  of  this  extraordinary  note  I  only  delayed  the 


.60  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

order  of  suspension  long  enough  to  make  the  necessary  arrangements  to  fill  the 
office.  If  this  were  the  only  caixse  for  his  suspension,  it  would  be  ample. 
Necessarily  it  must  end  our  most  important  official  relations,  for  I  cannot  imagine 
a  degree  of  effrontery  which  would  embolden  the  head  of  a  department  to  take 
his  seat  at  the  council  table  in  the  Executiv-e  Mansion  after  such  an  act.  Nor 
can  I  imagine  a  President  so  forgetful  of  the  proper  respect  and  dignity  which 
belong  to  his  office  as  to  submit  to  such  intrusion.  I  will  not  do  Mr.  Stanton 
tlxe  wrong  to  suppose  that  he  entertained  any  idea  of  offering  to  act  as  one  of 
my  constitiitional  advisers  after  that  note  was  written.  There  was  an  interval 
of  a  week  between  that  date  and  the  order  of  suspension,  during  which  two 
cabinet  meetings  were  held.  Mr.  Stanton  did  not  present  himself  at  either,  nor 
was  he  expected.  On  the  12th  of  August  Mr.  Stanton  was  notified  of  his  sus- 
pension, and  that  General  Grant  had  been  authorized  to  take  charge  of  tlte 
department.  In  his  answer  to  this  notification,  of  the  same  date,  Mr.  Stanton 
expresses  himself  as  follows: 

Under  a  sense  of  public  duty  I  am  compelled  to  deny  your  ri^ht,  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  suspend  me 
from  office  as  Secretary  of  War.or  the  exercise  of  any  or  all  functions  pertaiuiuc^  to  the  sanvo, 
or  without  such  advice  and  consent  to  compel  me  to  transfer  to  any  person  the  records,  books, 
papers,  and  public  jiroperty  in  my  custody  aa  Secretary.  But  inasmuch  as  the  General 
commanding  the  armies  of  the  United  States  has  been  appointed  ad  interim,  and  has  notified 
me  that  he  has  accepted  the  appointment,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  submit,  under  protest, 
to  superior  force. 

It  will  not  escape  attention  that  in  his  note  of  August  5  Mr.  Stanton  stated 
that  he  had  been  constrained  to  continue  in  the  office,  even  before  he  was  re- 
quested to  resign,  by  considerations  of  a  iiigh  public  character.  In  this  note  of 
August  12  a  new  and  different  sense  of  public  duty  compels  him  to  deny  tbe 
President's  right  to  suspend  him  from  office  without  the  consent  of  tlie  Senate. 
This  last  is  the  public  duty  of  resisting'  an  act  contrary  to  law,  and  he  charges 
the  President  with  violation  of  the  law  in  ordering  his  suspension. 

Mr.  Stanton  refei'S  generally  to  the  "Constitution  and  laws  of  the  Unite& 
States,"  and  says  that  a  sense  of  public  duty  "under"  these  compels  him  to 
deny  the  right  of  the  President  to  suspend  him  from  office.  As  to  his  sense  of 
duty  under  the  Constitution,  that  Avill  be  considered  in  the  sequel.  As  to  hia 
sense  of  duty  under  "  the  laws  of  the  United  States,"  he  certainly  cannot  refer 
to  the  law  which  creates  the  War  Department,  for  that  expressly  confers  upon 
the  President  the  unlimited  right  to  remove  the  head  of  the  department.  The 
only  other  law  bearing  upon  the  question  is  the  tenure-of-office  act,  passed  by 
Congress  over  the  presidential  veto  March  2,  1867.  This  is  the  law  which, 
luider  a  sense  of  public  duty,  Mr.  Stanton  volunteers  to  defend.  There  is  no 
provision  in  this  law  Avhich  compels  any  officer  coming  within  its  provisions  tx) 
remain  in  office.  It  forbids  removals,  but  not  resignations.  Mr.  Stanton  was 
perfectly  free  to  resign  at  any  moment,  either  upon  his  own  motion  or  in  com- 
pliance with  a  request  or  an  order.  It  was  a  matter  of  choice  Of  of  taste.  There 
was  nothing  comjjulsory  in  the  nature  of  legal  obligation.  Nor  does  he  put  liis 
action  upon  that  imperative  ground.  He  says  he  acts  under  a  "sense  of  public 
duty,"  not  of  legal  obligation,  compelling  him  to  hold  on,  and  leaving  him  no 
choice.  The  puhlic  duly  which  is  upon  him  arises  from  the  respect  which  be 
owes  to  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  violated  iu  his  own  case.  He  is,  there- 
fore, comi)elled  by  this  sense  of  public  duty  to  vindicate  violated  law  and  to 
stand  as  its  champion. 

This  was  not  the  first  occasion  in  which  ^Ir.  Stanton,  in  discharge  of  a  public 
duty,  was  called  upon  to  consider  the  provisions  of  thitt  law.  That  tenure-of- 
office  law  did  not  pass  without  notice.  Like  olhrr  acts  it  was  sent  to  the  Presi- 
dent for  ajjproval.  As  is  my  custom,  I  submitted  its  consideration  to  my  cabinet 
for  their  advice  upon  the  question,  whether  1  sboidd  approve  it  or  nOt.  It  was 
a  grave  question  of  constitutional  law,  iu  which  1  would  of  course  rely  most 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  61 

upon  tlic  opinion  of  tlie  Attorney  General  and  of  Mr.  Stanton,  who  liad  once  been 
Attorney  General.  Every  member  of  my  cabinet  advieed  me  that  the  })roposed 
law  was  unconstitutional.  All  spoke  without  doiiht  or  reservation,  but  Mr. 
Stanton's  condemnation  of  the  law  was  the  most  elaborate  and  emphatic.  lie 
referred  to  the  constitutional  provisions,  the  debatf^s  in  Congress — especially  to 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  when  a  senator — to  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  to  the  usage  from  the  beginning  of  the  government  through  every 
successive  administration,  all  concurring  to  establish  the  right  of  removal  as 
vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  President.  To  all  these  he  added  the  weight 
of  his  own  deliberate  judgment,  and  advised  me  that  it  was  my  duty  to  defend 
the  power  of  the  President  from  usurpation  and  to  veto  the  law. 

I  do  not  know  when  a  sense  of  public  duty  is  more  imperative  upon  a  head 
of  department  than  upon  such  an  occasion  as  this.  He  acts  then  under  the 
gravest  obligations  of  law;  for  when  he  is  called  upon  by  the  President  for 
advice  it  is  the  Constitution  that  speaks  to  him.  All  his  other  duties  are  left  by 
the  Constitution  to  be  regulated  by  statute;  but  this  duty  was  deemed  so  mo- 
mentous that  it  is  imposed  by  the  Constitution  itself.  After  all  this  I  was  not 
prepared  for  the  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Stanton  in  his  note  of  August  12..  I  was 
not  prepared  to  find  him  compelled,  by  a  new  and  indefinite  sense  of  public  duty 
under  "the  Constitution,"  to  assume  the  vindication  of  a  law  which,  under  the 
solemn  obligations  of  public  duty,  imposed  by  the  Constitution  itself,  he  advised 
me  was  a  violation  of  that  Constitution.  I  make  great  allowance  for  a  change 
of  opinion,  but  such  a  change  as  this  hardly  falls  within  the  limits  of  greatest 
indulgence.  Where  our  opinions  take  the  shape  of  advice  and  influence  the 
action  of  others,  the  utmost  stretch  of  charity  will  scarcely  justify  us  iu  repudi- 
ating them  when  they  come  to  be  applied  to  ourselves. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  narrative,  I  was  so  much  struck  with  the  full  mas- 
tery of  the  question  manifested  by  Mr.  Stanton,  and  was  at  the  time  so  fully 
occupied  with  the  preparation  of  another  veto  upon  the  pending  reconstruction 
act,  that  I  requested  him  to  prepare  the  veto  upon  this  tenure-of-otlice  bill. 
This  he  declined  on  the  ground  of  physical  disability  to  undergo,  at  the  time, 
the  labor  of  writing,  but  stated  his  r&adiness  to  furnish  what  aid  might  be 
required  in  the  preparation  of  materials  for  the  paper.  At  the  time  this  subject 
was  before  the  cabinet  it  seemed  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  as  to  those  mem- 
bers of  the  cabinet  who  had  been  appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  their  tenure  of  office 
was  not  fixed  by  the  provisions  of  the  act.  1  do  not  remember  that  the  point 
was  distinctly  decided;  but  I  well  recollect  that  it  was  suggested  by  one  mem- 
ber of  the  cabinet  who  was  appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  that  no  dissent  was 
expressed. 

Whether  the  point  was  well  taken  or  not  did  not  seem  to  me  of  any  conse- 
quence, for  the  lananimous  expression  of  opinion  against  the  constitutionality 
and  policy  of  the  act  was  so  decided  that  1  felt  no  concern,  so  far  as  the  act 
had  reference  to  the  gentlemen  then  present,  that  I  would  be  embarrassed  in  the 
future.  The  bill  had  not  then  become  a  law.  The  limitation  upon  the  power 
of  removal  was  not  yet  imposed,  and  there  was  yet  time  to  make  any  changes. 
If  any  one  of  these  gentlemen  had  then  said  to  me  that  he  would  avail  himself 
of  the  provisions  of  that  bill  in  case  it  became  a  law,  I  should  not  have  hesi- 
tated a  moment  as  to  his  removal.  No  pledge  was  then  expressly  given  or 
required.  But  there  are  circumstances  when  to  give  an  express  pledge  is  not 
necessary,  and  when  to  require  it  is  an  imputation  of  possible  bad  faith.  I  felt 
that  if  these  gentlemen  came  within  the  purview  of  the  bill,  it  was,  as  to  them, 
a  dead  letter,  and  that  none  of  them  would  ever  take  refuge  under  its  provis- 
ions. I  now  pass  to  another  subject.  AVhen,  on  the  15th  of  April,  1SG5,  the 
duties  of  the  presidential  ofiice  devolved  upon  me,  I  found  a  full  cabinet  of 
seven  members,  all  of  them  selected  by  Mr.  Lincoln.  I  made  no  change.  On 
the  contrary,  I  shortly  afterward  ratified  a  change  determined  upon  by  Mr.  Liu- 


62  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

coin,  but  not  perfected  at  his  death,  and  admitted  his  appointee,  Mr.  Harlan,  in 
the  place  of  Mr.  U.-^her,  who  was  in  office  at  the  time. 

The  great  duty  of  the  time  was  to  re-establisli  government,  law,  and  order iu 
the  insurrectionary  States.  Congress  was  then  in  recess,  and  the  sudden  over- 
throw of  the  rebfdlion  required  speedy  action.  This  grave  subject  had  engaged 
the  attention  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  last  days  of  his  life,  and  the  plan  according 
to  which  it  was  to  be  managed  had  been  prepared  and  was  ready  for  adoption. 
A  leading  feature  of  that  plan  v/as  tliat  it  should  be  carried  out  by  the  executive 
authority,  for,  so  far  as  I  have  been  informed,  neither  Mr.  Lincoln  nor  any  mem- 
ber of  his  cabinet  doubted  his  authority  to  act  or  proposed  to  call  an  extra  ses- 
sion of  Congress  to  do  the  work      The  first  business  transacted  in  cabinet  after 

1  became  President  was  this  unfinished  business  of  my  predecessor.  A  plan  or 
scheme  of  reconstruction  was  produced  which  had  been  prepared  for  Mr.  Lin- 
coln by  jMr.  Stanton,  his  Secretary  of  War.  It  was  approved,  and,  at  the 
earliest  momeiit  practicable,  was  applied  in  the  form  of  a  proclamation  to  the 
State  of  North  Carolina,  and  afterward  became  the  basis  of  action  iu  turn  for 
the  other  States. 

Upon  the  examination  of  Mr.  Stanton  before  the  impeachment  committee  he 
was  asked  the  following  question: 

Did  any  one  of  the  cabinet  express  a  doubt  of  the  power  of  the  executivo  branch  of  the 
government  to  reorganize  State  governments  which  had  been  iu  rebellion  without  the  aid  of 
Congress  ? 

He  answered  : 

None  whatever.  I  had  myself  entertained  no  doubt  of  the  authority  of  the  President  to 
take  measures  for  the  organization  of  the  rebel  States  on  the  plan  proposed  during  the  vaca- 
tion of  Congress,  and  agreed  iu  the  plan  specified  in  the  proclamation  iu  the  case  of  North 
Carolina. 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  act  of  my  administration  for  which  I  have  been  more 
denounced  than  this.  It  was  not  originated  by  me ;  but  I  shrink  from  no 
responsibility  on  that  account,  for  the  ])lan  approved  itself  to  my  own  judgment, 
and  I  did  not  hesitate  to  carry  it  into  execution.  Thus  far,  and  upon  this  vit;J 
policy,  there  was  perfect  accord  between  the  cabinet  and  myself,  and  I  saw  no 
necessity  for  a  change.  As  time  passed  on  there  was  developed  an  unfortunate 
difference  of  opinion  and  of  policy  between  Congress  and  the  President  upon 
this  same  subject  and  upon  the  ultimate  basis  upon  which  the  reconstruction  of 
these  States  should  proceed,  especially  upon  the  question  of  negro  suffrage. 
Upon  this  point  three  members  of  the  cabinet  found  themselves  to  be  in  sym- 
pathy with  Congress.  They  remained  only  long  enough  to  see  that  the  differ- 
ence of  policy  could- not  be  reconciled.  Tliey  felt  that  they  should  remain  no 
longer,  and  a  high  sense  of  duty  and  propriety  constrained  them  to  resign  their 
positions.  We  parted  with  mutual  respect  for  the  sincerity  of  each  other  in 
opposite  opinions,  and  mutual  regret  that  the  difference  was  on  points  so  vital 
as  to  require  a  severance  of  official  relations.  This  was  in  the  summer  of  1S66. 
The  subsequent  sessions  of  Congress  developed  new  complications  when  the 
suffrage  bill  for  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the  reconstruction  acts  of  March 

2  and  March  23,  1SG7,  all  passed  over  the  veto.  It  was  in  cabinet  consulta- 
tions upon  these  bills  that  a  difference  of  ojjinion  upon  the  most  vital  points  was 
develoj)ed.  Upon  these  questions  there  was  perfect  accord  between  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  cabinet  and  myself,  except  Mr.  Stanton.  He  stood  alone,  and  the 
difference  of  opinion  could  not  be  reconciled.  That  unity  of  opinion  which 
upon  great  questions  of  public  policy  or  administration  is  so  essential  to  the 
Executive  was  gone, 

I  do  not  claim  that  the  head  of  a  departmtmt  should  have  no  other  opinions 
than  those  of  the  President.  He  has  the  same  right,  iu  the  conscientious  dis- 
charge of  duty,  to  entertain  and  express  his  own  opinions  as  has  the  President. 
What  I  do  claim  is  that  the  President  is  the  responsible  head  of  the  adminie- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  63 

tration,  and  wlyon  the  opinions  of  a  head  of  department  are  UTeconcilably 
opposed  to  those  of  the  President  in  grave  matters  of  policy  and  administration 
there  is  but  one  result  wliich  can  solve  the  difficulty,  and  that  is  a  severance  of 
the  official  relation.  This,  in  the  past  history  of  the  government,  has  always 
been  the  rule  ;  and  it  is  a  wise  one ;  for  such  differences  of  opinion  among  its 
members  must  impair  the  efficiency  of  any  administration. 

I  have  now  referred  to  the  general  grounds  upon  which  the  withdrawal  of 
My.  Stanton  from  my  administration  seemed  to  me  to  be  proper  and  necessary  ; 
but  I  cannot  omit  to  state  a  special  ground  which,  if  it  stood  alone,  would  vin- 
dicate my  action. 

The  sanguinary  riot  which  occurred  in  the  city  of  New  Orleans  on  the  30th  of 
August,  1866,  justly  aroused  public  indignation  and  public  inquiry,  not  only  as  to 
those  who  were  engaged  in  it,  but  as  to  those  who,  more  or  less  remotely,  might  be 
held  to  responsibility  for  its  occurrence.  I  need  not  remind  the  Senate  of  the  effort 
made  to  fix  that  responsibility  on  the  President.  The  charge  was  openly  made, 
and  again  and  again  reiterated  through  all  the  land,  that  the  President  was 
warned  in  time  but  refused  to  interfere. 

By  telegrams  from  the  lieutenant  governor  and  attorney  general  of  Louisiana, 
dated  the  27 di  and  2Sth  of  August,  I  was  advised  that  a  body  of  delegates, 
claiming  to  be  a  constitutional  convention,  were  about  to  assemble  in  New 
Orleans  ;  that  the  matter  was  before  the  grand  jury,  but  that  it  vv^ould  be  im- 
possible to  execute  civil  process  without  a  riot,  and  this  question  was  asked : 
"  Is  the  military  to  interfere  to  prevent  process  of  court  ?"  This  question  was 
asked  at  a  time  when  the  civil  courts  were  in  the  full  exercise  of  their  authority, 
and  the  answer  sent  by  telegraph,  on  the  same  2St!i  of  August,  was  this  : 

The  ruilitaiy  will  be  expected  to  sustain,  and  not  to  interfere  with  tbe  proceedings  of  tlie 
courts. 

On  the  same  2Sth  of  August  the  following  telegram  was  sent  to  Mr.  Stantou 
by  Major  General  Baird,  then  (owing  to  the  absence  of  General  Sheridan)  iu 
command  of  the  military  at  New  Orleans  : 

Hon.  Edwix  M.  Stanton,  Stcretary  of  War: 

A  convention  has  been  called,  with  the  sanction  of  Governor  Wells,  to  meet  here  on  Mon- 
day. The  lieutenant  governor  and  city  authorities  think  it  unlawful,  and  propose  to  break 
it  up  by  arresting  the  delegates.  I  have  given  no  orders  on  the  subject,  but  have  warned 
tlie  parties  that  I  could  not  countenance  or  permit  such  action  without  instructions  to  that 
effect  from  the  President.    Please  instruct  me  at  once  by  telegraph. 

The  2Sth  of  August  was  on  Saturday.  The  next  morning,  the  29th,  this 
despatch  was  received  by  Mr.  Stanton,  at  his  residence  in  this  city.  He  took 
no  action  upon  it,  and  neither  sent  instructions  to  General  Baird  himself  nor 
})resented  it  to  me  for  such  instructions.  On  the  next  day  (Monday)  the  riot 
occurred.  1  never  saw  this  despatch  from  General  Baird  until  some  ten  days  or 
two  weeks  after  the  riot,  when,  upon  my  call  for  all  the  despatches,  with  a  view 
to  their  publication,  Mr.  Stanton  sent  it  to  me.  These  facts  all  appear  in  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Stanton  before  the  Judiciary  Committee  in  the  impeachment 
investigation.  On  the  30th,  the  day  of  the  riot,  and  after  it  was  suppressed, 
General  Baird  wrote  to  Mr.  Stanton  a  long  letter,  from  which  I  make  the  fol- 
lowing extracts : 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  a  very  serious  riot  occurred  here  to-day.  I  had 
not  been  applied  to  by  the  convention  for  protection,  but  the  lieutenant  governor  and  the 
mayor  had  freely  consirlted  with  me,  and  1  was  so  fully  convinced  that  it  was  so  strongly 
the  intent  of  the  city  authorities  to  preserve  the  peace,  in  order  to  prevent  military  interfer- 
ence, that  I  did  regard  au  outbreak  as  a  thing  to  be  apprehended.  The  lieutenant  governor 
had  assured  me  that  even  if  a  writ  of  arrest  was  is.sued  by  the  court,  the  sherilF  would  not 
attempt  to  serve  it  without  my  permission,  and  for  to-day  they  designed  to  suspend  it.  I 
enclose  herewith  copies  of  my  correspondence  vr itli  the  mayor,  and  of  a  despatcli  which  the 
lieutenant  governor  claims  to  have  received  from  the  President.  I  regret  that  no  reply  to  my 
detipatc.h  to  you  of  Saturday  haa  yot  reached  me.     General  Sheridan  is  still  absent  m  Texas. 


64  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT 

The  cl(>ppatch  of  General  Baird  of  the  28th  asks  for  immediate  instmetions, 
and  hi.s  letter  of  the  30th,  after  detailing  the  terrible  riot  which  had  just  hap- 
pened, ends  with  the  expression  of  regret  that  the  instructions  wliicli  he  asked 
for  were  not  sent.  It  is  not  the  fault  or  the  error  or  the  omission  of  the  Presi- 
dent that  this  military  commander  was  left  without  instructions ;  bnt  for  all 
omissions,  for  all  errors,  for  all  failures  to  instruct,  when  instruction  might  have 
averted  this  calamity,  the  President  was  openly  and  persistently  held  respon- 
sible. Instantly,  without  waiting  for  proof,  the  delinquency  of  the  President  was 
heralded  in  every  form  of  utterance,  Mr.  Stanton  knew  then  that  the  President 
was  not  responsible  for  this  delinquency.  The  exculpation  was  in  his  power, 
but  it  was  not  given  by  him  to  the  public,  and  only  to  the  President  in  obedience 
to  a  requisition  for  all  the  despatches. 

No  one  regrets  more  than  myself  that  General  Baird's  request  was  not  brought 
to  my  notice.  It  is  clear,  from  his  despatch  and  letter,  that  if  the  Secretary  of 
War  had  given  him  proper  instructions  the  riot  which  arose  on  the  assembling 
of  the  convention  would  have  been  averted.  There  may  be  those  ready  to  say 
that  I  would  have  given  no  instructions,  even  if  the  despatch  had  reached  me 
in  time;  but  all  must  admit  that  I  ought  to  have  had  the  opportunity. 

The  following  is  the  testimony  given  by  Mr.  Stanton  before  the  impeachment 
investigation  committee  as  to  the  despatch  : 

Q.  Eefening  to  the  despatch  of  the  28th  of  July  by  General  Baird,  I  ask  yoxi  whether 
that  despatch,  on  its  receipt,  was  communicated  ? 

A.  I  received  that  despatch  on  Sunday  forenoon  ;  I  examined  it  carefully  and  considered 
the  question  presented ;  I  did  not  see  that  I  could  give  any  instructions  ditl'erent  from  the 
line  of  action  which  General  Baird  proposed,  and  made  no  answer  to  the  despatch. 

Q.  I  see  it  stated  that  this  was  received  at  ten  o'clock  and  twenty  minutes  p.  m.  Was 
that  the  hour  at  which  it  was  received  by  you  ? 

A.  That  is  the  date  of  its  reception  in  the  telegraph  office  Saturday  night.  I  received  it 
on  Sunday  forenoon,  at  my  residence  ;  a  copy  of  the  despatch  was  furnished  to  the  President 
several  days  afterward,  along  with  all  tlie  other  despatches  and  communications  on  that  sub- 
ii'Ct,  but  it  was  not  furnished  by  me  before  that  time;  I  suppose  it  may  have  been  ten  or 
fifteen  days  afterward. 

Q.  The  President  himself  being  in  correspondence  with  those  parties  npon  the  same  sub- 
ject, would  it  not  have  been  proper  to  have  advised  him  of  the  reception  of  that  desjiatch  ? 

A  I  know  nothing  about  his  correspondence,  and  know  nothing  about  any  correspondence 
except  this  one  despatch.  We  had  intelligence  of  the  riot  on  Thursday  morning.  The  riot 
had  taken  place  on  Monday. 

It  is  a  difficult  matter  to  define  all  the  relations. which  exist  between  the  heads 
of  department  and  the  President.  The  legal  relations  are  well  enough  defined. 
The  Constitution  places  these  ofiicers  in  the  relation  of  his  advisers  when  he 
calls  upon  them  for  advice.  Tiie  acts  of  Congress  go  further.  Take,  for  exam- 
ple, the  act  of  1789,  creating  the  War  Department.     It  provides  that — 

Tlu're  shall  be  a  principal  officer  therein,  to  be  called  tlie  Secretary  for  the  Department 
of  War,  wlio  shall  perform  and  execute  such  duties  as  shall  from  time  to  time  be  I'ujoined  on 
or  intrusted  to  him  by  tlie  President  of  the  United  States:"  and  furtiiermore,  "  the  said  prin- 
cipal ofticiT  sliall  conduct  the  business  of  the  said  department  in  such  manner  as  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  Stales  shall  from  time  to  time  order  and  instruct. 

Provision  is  also  made  for  the  appointment  of  an  inferior  officer  by  the  head 
of  the  department,  to  be  called  the  chief  clerk,  "  who,  whenever  said  principal 
officer  shall  be  removed  from  office  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,"  shall 
have  the  charge  and  custody  of  the  books,  records,  and  papers  of  the  depart- 
ment. 

The  legal  relation  is  analogous  to  that  of  priiici[)al  agent.  It  is  the  President 
upon  whom  the  Constitution  (h;volves,  as  head  of  tlie  executive  depaitment,  the 
duty  to  se(!  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed;  but  as  he  cannot  execute  them 
in  person  he  is  allowed  to  sehict  his  agents,  and  is  made  responsible  for  their 
acts  within  just  limits.  So  complete  is  this  presuraod  delegation  of  authority 
in  the  relation  of  a  head  of  departnuuit  to  the  President  that  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  have  decided  that  an  order  made  by  a  head  of  department 
is  presumed  to  be  made  by  the  President  himself. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  65 

The  principal,  xipon  whom  such  responsibility  is  placed  for  the  acts  of  a  siib- 
onlinate,  ought  to  be  left  as  free  as  possible  in  the  matter  of  sek-ction  anfl  of 
clismissiil.  To  hold  him  to  responsibility  for  an  officer  beyond  his  control;  to 
leave  the  question  of  the  fitness  of  such  an  agent  to  be  decided  for  him  and  not 
by  him ;  to  allow  such  a  subordinate,  when  the  President,  moved  by  "  public 
considerations  of  a  liigh  character,"  requests  his  resignation  to  assume  for  him- 
self an  equal  right  to  act  upon  his  own  views  of  "  public  considerations,"  and 
to  make  his  own  conclusions  paramount  to  those  of  the  President — to  allow  all 
tliis  is  to  reverse  tie  just  order  of  administration,  and  to  place  the  subordinate 
above  ihe  superior. 

There  are,  however,  other  relations  between  the  President  and  a  head  of 
department  beyond'tliese  defined  legal  relations  which  necessarily  attend  them, 
though  not  expressed.  Chief  among  tbese  is  mutual  confidence.  This  relation 
is  so  delicate  tbat  it  is  sometimes  hard  to  say  when  or  how  it  ceases.  A  single 
flagrant  act  may  end  it  at  once,  and  then  there  is  no  difficulty.  But  confidence 
may  be  just  as  effictually  destroyed  by  a  series  of  causes  too  subtle  for  demon- 
stration. As  it  is  a  plant  of  slow  growth,  so,  too,  it  may  be  slow  in  decay. 
Such  has  been  the  process  here.  I  will  not  pretend  to  say  what  acts  or  omis- 
sions have  broken  up  this  relation.  They  are  hardly  susceptible  of  statement, 
and  still  less  of  formal  proof.  Nevertheless,  no  one  can  read  the  correspondence 
of  the  5lh  of  August  without  being  convinced  that  this  relation  was  effectually 
gone  ou  both  sides,  and  that,  while  the  President  was  unwilling  to  allow  Mr. 
JStanton  to  remain  in  his  administration,  Mr.  Stanton  was  equally  unwilling  to 
allow  the  President  to  carry  ou  his  administration  without  his  presence.  In 
the  great  debate  which  touk  place  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1789,  on 
the  first  orga-'  iz'ftion  of  the  principal  departments,  Mr.  Madison  spoke  as  follows  : 

It  is  pvideutly  the  inteution  of  the  Constitution  that  the  First  Maojistrate  should  be 
respousible  for  the  executive  departuient.  So  far,  therefore,  as  we  do  not  make  the  cfficers 
who  are  to  aid  him  in  the  duties  of  that  department  responsible  to  him,  he  is  not.  responsible 
to  the  couutrj.  Ag'aiu,  is  there  no  danger  that  an  C)thL'er,  when  he  is  appointed  by  the  con- 
currence ot  the  Senate,  and  his  friends  in  that  body,  may  choose  ratiier  to  risk  his  establish- 
ment on  the  favor  of  that  branch  than  rest  it  upon  the  discharj^e  of  his  duties  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  executive  branch,  which  is  constitutionally  aiUhorized  to  inspect  and  control  his 
conduct  ?  And  if  it  should  happen  that  the  ofKcers  connect  themselves  with  the  Senate, 
they  may  mutually  support  each  other,  and  for  want  of  eflQcacy  reduce  the  power  of  the 
President  to  a  nieie  vapor,  in  which  case  liis  respou.-ibility  would  be  annihilated,  and  the 
expecta  inn  (4'  it  is  unjust.  The  liigli  executive  otificers  joined  in  cabal  with  the  Senate  would 
lay  the  foundation  ot  discord,  and  eud  in  an  assumption  of  the  executive  jjower,  only  to  be 
removed  by  a  revolution  of  the  governmeut. 

Mr.  .^edgwick,  in  the  same  debate,  referring  to  the  proposition  that  a  head  of 
Department  should  only  be  removed  or  suspended  by  the  concurrence  of  the 
Senate,  uses  this  language  : 

"  But  if  proof  be  neiessary,  what  is  then  the  consequence?  Why,  in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  where  the  case  is  very  clear  to  the  nund  of  the  President  that  the  man  ought  to  be 
removed,  the  et!ect  cannot  be  produced  because  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  produce  the 
uecessaiy  evidence.  Are  the  Senate  to  proceed  without  evidence  '.'  Sonie  gentiemeu  contend 
ut)t.  Tiien  the  object  will  be  lost.  iSJiall  a  man,  under  these  circumstances,  be  saddled  ujion 
the  President,  who  has  been  appointed  for  no  other  purpose  but  to  aid  the  I'resid(!iit  in  per- 
forming certuiu  duties  ?  Shall  he  be  continued,  I  ask  again,  against  tlie  will  of  the  Presi- 
dent .'  If  he  is,  where  is  the  responsibility  .'  Are  you  to  look  for  it  in  the  President  who  has 
no  control  over  the  otiieer,  no  power  to  remove  him  if  he  acts  unfeelingly  or  untaiililully  ? 
Without  you  make  him  responsible  you  weaken  and  destroy  the  stiength  and  beauty  of  your 
system.  What  is  to  be  dune  in  cases  which  can  only  be  Ivnown  from  a  long  acqiiaiutance 
with  the  conduct  of  an  officer?" 

I  had  indulged  the  hope  that  upon  the  assembling  of  Congress  Mr.  Stanton 
would  have  ended  this  unpleasant  complication  according  to  the  intimation  given 
in  his  note  of  August  12.  The  du'y  which  1  have  felt,  myself  called  upon  to 
perform  was  by  no  means  agreeable;  but  I  leel  that  I  am  not  responsible  for  the 
controversy,  or  for  the  consequences. 

5  I  P 


QS  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Unpleasant  as  this  necessary  change  in  my  cabinet  has  been  to  me,  upon 
personal  considerations,  1  have  the  consolation  to  be  assured  that,  so  far  as  the 
public  interests  are  involved,  there  is  no  cause  for  regret.  Salutary  reforms 
have  been  introduced  by  the  Secretary  ad  interim,  and  great  reductions  of 
expenses  have  been  effected  under  his  administration  of  its  War  Department, 
to  the  saving  of  millions  to  the  treasury. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Washington,  December  12, 1867. 


Exhibit  0. 

Address  to  the  President  hy  Hon.  Rcverdy  Johnson,  August  18,  1866, 

Mr.  President  :  We  are  before  you  as  a  committee  of  the  National  Union 
Convention,  which  met  in  Philadelphia,  on  Tuesday,  the  14th  instant,  charged 
with  the  duty  of  presenting  you  with  an  authentic  copy  of  its  proceedings. 

Before  placing  it  in  your  hands,  you  will  permit  lis  to  congratulate  you  that 
in  the  object  for  which  the  convention  was  called,  in  the  enthii-iiasm  with  which 
in  every  State  and  Territory  the  call  was  responded  to,  in  the  unbroken  har- 
mony of  its  deliberations,  in  the  unanimity  with  which  the  principles  it  has  de- 
clared were  adopted,  and  more  especiall}'  in  the  patriotic  and  constitutional 
character  of  the  principles  themselves,  we  are  conlident  that  you  and  the 
country  will  find  gratifying  and  cheering  evidence  that  there  exists  among  the 
people  a  public  sentiment  which  renders  an  early  and  complete  restoration  of 
the  Union  as  established  by  the  Constitution  certain  and  inevitable.  Party 
faction,  seeking  the  continuance  of  its  misrule,  may  momentarily  delay  it,  but 
the  principles  of  political  liberty,  for  v/hich  our  fathers  successfully  contended, 
and  to  secure  which  they  adopted  the  Constitution,  are  so  glaringly  inconsistent 
with  the  condition  in  which  the  country  has  been  placed  by  such  misrule,  that 
it  will  not  be  permitted  a  much  longer  duration. 

We  wish,  Mr.  President,  you  could  have  witnessed  the  spirit  of  concord  and 
brotherly  affection  which  animated  every  member  of  the  convention.  Great  as 
your  confidence  has  ever  been  in  the  intelligence  and  patriotism  of  your  fellow- 
citizens,  in  their  deep  devotion  to  the  Union,  and  their  present  determination  to 
reinstate  and  maintain  it,  that  confidence  would  have  become  a  positive  convic- 
tion could  you  have  seen  and  heard  all  that  was  done  and  said  u2)on  the  occa- 
sion. Every  heart  was  evidently  full  of  joy,  every  eye  bt;amed  with  patriotic 
animation  ;  despondency  gave  place  to  the  assurance  that,  our  late  dreadful  civil 
strife  ended,  the  blissful  reign  of  {)eace,  under  the  protection  not  of  arms,  but  of  the 
Constitution  and  laws,  would  have  SM'ay,  and  be  in  every  part  of  our  land  cheer- 
fully acknowledged  and  in  perfect  good  faith  obeyed.  You  would  not  have 
doubted  that  the  lecuirence  of  dangerous  domestic  insurrections  in  the  future  is 
not  to  be  apprehended. 

If  you  could  have  seen  the  men  of  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina  coming 
into  the  convention  the  first  day  of  its  meeting,  hand  in  hand,  amid  the  rap- 
turous applause  of  the  whole  body,  awakened  by  heartfelt  gratification  at  the 
event,  filling  the  eyes  of  thousands  with  tears  of  joy,  whicli  they  neither  could 
nor  desired  to  repress,  you  would  have  felt  as  every  pcjrson  present  felt,  that 
the  time  had  arrived  when  all  sectional  or  other  [)erilous  dissensions  had  ceased, 
and  that  nothing  should  be  heard  in  the  future  but  the  voice  of  harmony  pro- 
claiming devotion  to  a  conunou  country,  of  pride  in  being  bound  to^'ether  by  a 
connnon  Union,  existing  and  protected  by  forms  of  government  proved  by  expe- 
rience to  be  eminently  fitted  for  the  exigencies  of  either  war  or  peace. 

In   the  principles  announced   by   the  convention  and   in  the  feeling  there 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  67 

manifestecl,  we  have  every  assurance  that  harmony  throughout  our  entire  land 
will  soon  prevail.  We  know  that,  as  in  former  days,  as  was  eloqunntly  declared 
by  Webster,  the  nation's  most  gifted  statesman,  Massachusetts  and  South  Caro- 
lina went  "  shoulder  to  shoulder  through  the  Revolution,"  and  stood  hand  in 
hand  "around  the  administration  of  Washington,  and  felt  his  own  great  arm 
Iran  on  them  for  support,"  so  will  they  again,  with  like  magnanimity,  devotion, 
and  power,  stand  round  your  administration,  and  cause  you  to  feel  that  you  may 
also  lean  on  them  for  support. 

In  the  proceedings,  Mr.  President,  which  we  are  to  place  in  your  hands,  you 
will  find  that  the  convention  performed  the  grateful  duty  imposed  upon  them 
by  their  knowledge  of  your  "  devotion  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  and  interests 
of  your  country,"  as  illustrated  by  your  entire  presidential  career,  of  di3claring 
that  in  you  they  "recognize  a  Chief  Magistrate  worthy  of  the  n;ition  and  equal 
to  the  great  crisis  upon  which  your  lot  is  cast;"  and  in  this  declaration  it  gives 
us  marked  pleasure  to  add,  we  are  confident  that  the  convention  has  but  spoken 
the  intelligent  and  patriotic  sentiment  of  the  country.  Ever  inaccessible  to  the 
low  influences  which  often  control  the  mere  partisan,  governed  alone  by  aa 
honest  opinion  of  constitutional  obligations  and  rights,  and  of  the  duty  of 
looking  solely  to  the  true  intert'sts,  saft^ty,  and  honor  of  the  nation,  such  a  class 
is  incapable  of  resorting  to  any  bait  for  popularity  at  the  expense  of  the  public 
good. 

In  the  measures  which  you  have  adopted  for  the  restoration  of  the  Union 
the  convention  saw  only  a  continuance  of  the  policy  which  for  the  same  purpose 
was  inaugurated  by  your  immediate  predecessor.  In  his  re-election  by  the 
people,  after  that  policy  had  been  fully  indicated  and  had  been  made  one  of  the 
i>!sues  of  the  contest,  those  of  his  political  friends  who  are  now  assailing  you 
for  sternly  pursuing  it  are  forgetful  or  regardless  of  the  opinions  which  their 
support  of  his  re-election  necessarily  involved.  Being  upon  the  same  ticket 
with  that  much-lamented  public  servant,  whose  foul  assassination  touched  the 
ht/art  of  the  civilized  world  with  grief  and  horror,  you  would  have  been  false 
to  obvious  duty  if  you  had  not  endeavored  to  carry  out  the  same  policy ;  and, 
judging  now  by  the  opposite  one  which  Congress  has  pursued,  its  wisdom  and 
jiatriotism  are  indicated  by  the  fact  that  that  of  Congress  has  but  continued  a 
broken  Union  by  keeping  ten  of  the  States  in  which  at  one  time  the  iusuri-ection 
existed  (as  far  as  they  could  accomplish  it)  in  the  condition  of  subjugated  prov- 
inces, denying  to  them  the  right  to  be  represented,  while  subjecting  their  people 
to  every  species  of  legislation,  including  that  of  taxation.  That  such  a  state  of 
tilings  is  at  war  with  the  very  genius  of  our  goverunif'nt,  inconsistent  with  every 
idea  of  political  freedom,  and  most  perilous  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  coun- 
try, no  reflecting  man  can  fail  to  believe. 

We  hope,  sir,  that  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  will  cause  you  to  adhere, 
if  possible,  with  even  greater  firmness  to  the  course  which  you  are  pursuing,  by 
satisfying  yon  that  the  people  are  with  you,  and  that  the  wish  which  lies  nearest 
to  their  heart  is  that  a  perfect  restoration  of  our  Union  at  the  earliest  moment 
be  attained,  and  a  conviction  that  the  I'esult  can  only  be  accomplished  by  the 
measures  which  you  are  pursuing.  And  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  which 
these  impose  upon  you,  we,  as  did  every  member  of  the  convention,  again  for 
ourselves  individually  tender  to  you  our  profound  respect  and  assurance  of  our 
cordial  and  sincere  support. 

With  a  reunited  Union,  with  no  foot  but  that  of  a  freeman  treading  or  per- 
mitted to  tread  our  soil,  with  a  nation's  faith  pledged  forever  to  a  strict  observ- 
ance of  all  its  obligations,  with  kindness  and  fraternal  love  ev(a-y where  prevail- 
ing, the  desolations  of  war  will  soon  be  removed  ;  its  sacrifices  of  life,  sad  as 
they  have  been,  will,  with  Christian  resignation,  be  referred  to  a  providential 
purpose  of  fixing  our  beloved  country  on  a  firm  and  enduring  basis,  which  will 
forever  place   our  liberty   and   happiness  beyond  the  reach   of  human  peril. 


68  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Then,  too,  and  forever,  -n-ill  our  governmont  cliallenge  the  admiration  and  re- 
ceive the  respect  of  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  be  in  no  danger  of  any  efforts 
to  impeach  our  honor. 

And  permit  me,  ?ir,  in  conclusion,  to  add,  that,  great  as  your  solicitude  for  the 
restoration  of  our  domestic  peace  and  your  labors  to  that  end,  you  have  also  a 
watchful  eye  to  the  rights  of  the  nation,  and  that  any  attempt  by  an  assumed 
or  actual  foreign  power  to  enforce  an  illegal  blockade  against  the  g  ivernraent  or 
cin'zens  of  the  United  States,  to  use  your  own  mild  but  expressive  words,  "  will 
be  disallowed."  In  this  determination  I  am  sure  you  will  receive  the  unanimous 
approval  of  your  fellow-citizens. 

Now,  sir,  as  the  chairman  of  this  commiitee,  and  in  behalf  of  ihe  convention, 
I  have  the  honor  to  present  you  with  an  authentic  copy  of  its  proceedings. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  have  heard  the  answer  submittf^d  by  the 
counsel  for  the  President  of  the  United  States.  Those  of  you  who  are  in  favor 
of  receiving  and  ordering  this  answer  to  be  filed  will  say  "ay,"  and  those  who 
are  of  the  contrary  opinion  will  say  "  no."  [Having  put  the  question.]  It  is 
so  ordered  ;  the  answer  is  received  and  will  be  filed. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  in 
behalf  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  as  directed  by  the  managers,  I 
have  the  honor  to  request  of  the  honorable  Senate  a  copy  of  the  answer  filed 
by  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment presented  against  him  by  the  House  of  Repnjsentatives,  and  to  say  that 
it  is  the  expectation  of  the  managers  that  they  will  be  able  at  one  o'clock  to- 
morrow afternoon,  after  consultation  with  the  House,  to  present  a  fit  replication 
to  the  answer  filed. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  the  counsel  for  the  President 
think  it  proper,  unless  some  objection  should  now  be  made,  to  bring  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  honorable  court  the  matter  of  provision  for  the  aHowance  of  the 
time  for  preparation  for  the  trial  which  shall  be  accorded  to  the  President  and 
bis  counsel  after  the  replication  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  the  answer 
of  the  President  shall  have  been  submitted  to  this  court.  In  the  application 
which  was  made  on  the  13th  instant  for  time  for  the  preparation  and  submis- 
sion of  the  answer,  as  then  pi-esented  to  the  court,  we  had  included  in  our  con- 
sideration of  that  time  for  Avhich  we. so  asked,  the  expectation  and  intention  of 
carrying  on  with  all  due  diligence  and  at  one  and  the  same  time  the  preparation 
of  the  answer  and  the  preparation  for  the  trial.  The  action  of  the  court  and 
its  determination  of  the  time  within  which  the  answer  should  properl}'  be  pre- 
sented has  obliged  us,  as  may  be  well  understood  by  this  court,  to  devote  our 
whole  time  and  thought  in  this  brief  interval  to  the  preparation  of  the  answer; 
and  we  have  had  no  time  to  consider  the  various  questions  of  law  and  of  fact 
and  of  evidence,  and  the  forms  and  means  of  the  production  of  the  same,  wliich 
rest  upon  the  responsibility  and  lie  witliin  the  duty  of  counsid  in  all  matters  of 
forensic  and  judicial  consideration.  AVe,  therefore,  if  the  honorable  court  phrase, 
submit  now  a  request  that  the  President  and  his  counsel  may  be  allowed  the 
period  of  thirty  (hiys  after  the  filing  of  the  replication  on  the  i)art  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  the  answer  of  the  President  for  prejiaration  for  the  trial 
and  before  it  shall  actually  ])roceed;  and  I  beg  leave  to  send  to  the  Chief  Justice 
a  written  minute  of  that  pnqiosition  signed  by  the  counsel. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  not  for  the  present  in  order.  The  question  before 
the  Senate  is  the  motion  submitted  on  the  part  of  the  managers  of  the  impeach 
ment  that  the  House  of  Representatives  have  time  to  file  a  replication. 

The  motion  of  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  will  now  receive  an  application  on  the  part 
of  the  counsel  for  the  Pi'csidcnt. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  now  beg  to  ask  for  the  action  of  this  honorable  court  upon 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PKESIDENT.  69 

the  presentation  in  writing  of  a  request  for  thirty  days  after  tlie  filing  of  the 
replication  for  the  defence  to  prepare  for  the  trial. 

The  (.'hikf  Justick.  The  Secretary  will  report  the  order  asked  on  the  part 
of  the  counsel  for  the  President. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  sitting  as  a  Court  of  Impeachment : 

And  now,  on  this  23d  day  of  March,  in  the  year  ISGS,  the  counsel  for  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  upon  reading  and  filing  his  answer  to  the  arti- 
cles of  impeachment  exhihited  against  him,  respectfully  represent  to  this  honor- 
able court  that  after  the  rcplicatioa  shall  have  been  filed  to  the  said  answer,  the 
due  and  proper  preparation  of  and  for  the  trial  of  the  cause  will  require,  in  the 
opinion  and  judgment  of  such  counsel,  that  a  period  of  not  less  than  thirty  days 
should  be  allowed  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  his  counsel  for 
such  preparation,  and  before  the  said  trial  should  proceed. 

HP]NRY  STANBERY, 
B.  R.  CURTIS, 
THOMAS  A.  R.  NELSON, 
WILLIAM  M.  EVARTS, 
W.  S.  GROESBECK, 

Of  Counsel. 

Mr.  Howard.  Mr.  President,  if  it  be  in  order  I  will  now  move  that  that 
a])plication  lie  upon  the  table  until  the  replication  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives shall  come  in. 

Mr.  Manager  BIi\gham.  Mr.  President,  before  the  vote  is  taken  I  ask  leave 
to  state  that,  if  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Senate,  the  managers  on  the  part  of 
the  House  are  ready  to  consider  this  apjjlication  now. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  it  is  moved  by  the  senator  from  Michigan 
that  the  application  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  for  the  President  lie  upon  the 
table  until  the  replication  shall  be  filed. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  withdraw  that  motion  for  the  moment  if  the  managers  wish 
to  be  heard. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Michigan  withdraws  his  motion. 
Do  the  managers  desire  to  be  heard  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Logan.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  am  instructed  by  the 
managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  resist  the  granting  of 
this  application,  not  on  account  of  the  time  at  which  it  is  presented,  but  for  the 
reason  that  it  does  not  contain  such  matter  as  in  our  opinion  will  justify  the 
Senate  in  giving  further  time  for  preparation  on  the  part  of  the  respondent's 
counsel  for  the  trial  of  this  cause.  We  do  not  desire  to  force  this  trial  any 
more  rapidly  than  the  necessities  of  the  case  demand,  but  desire  that  such  rules 
as  have  heretofore  been  observed,  or  as  would  be  observed  in  a  court  at  law, 
may  be  adhered  to  in  the  testing  of  the  sufficiency  of  this  a])plication.  What 
reasons  are  given  in  the  application  here  presented  for  the  time  to  be  extended? 
None  more  than  that  counsel  shall  have  an  opportunity  to  prepare  themselves 
fnr  oratorical  displays  before  this  august  body.  They  have  had  the  same 
opportunities  that  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
lave  had  for  preparation.  They  can  and  will  have  the  same  during  the  whole 
])rogress  of  this  trial.  It  is  not  stated  that  any  witness  who  will  j)rove  any 
mateiial  fact  is  not  present,  or  whose  presence  cannot  any  day  be  procured.  It 
is  not  stated  that  delay  is  necessary  for  the  procurement  of  records,  docu- 
ments, persons,  or  papers,  material  or  immaterial  in  this  case.  Why,  then,  Mr. 
] 'resident,  grant  further  time  when  no  good  cause  under  the  rule  is  shown] 
'i'he  answer  herein  filed  admits  the  order  of  removal  of  the  Secretary  of  War 
and  the  order  appointing  a  Secretary  ad  interim.     The  President  knew  what 


70  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRSSIDENT. 

the  law  was  when  these  orders  were  made,  and  knowino^  it,  violated  it,  for  which 
violation  we  charge  him  with  high  misdemeanors  in  office.  In  the  many  trials 
we  have  reported  in  this  and  other  countries  this  application  has  no  precedent. 

In  the  case  of  Judge  Chase  his  application  stated,  in  substance,  that  it  was 
not  in  his  power  to  obtain  information  respecting  facts  alleged  against  him  to 
have  taken  place  in  Pliiladeljjhia  and  Richmond,  in  time  to  prepare  and  put  in 
his  answer  and  proceed  to  trial  before  the  5th  day  of  March  then  next  following  ; 
and  further,  that  he  could  not  get  his  witnesses  or  counsel  nor  prepare  his 
answer  at  the  same  time,  disclaiming  that  this  was  done  for  delay.  This  appli- 
cation was  sworn  to  by  the  respondent ;  he  was  given  time,  and  the  facts  show 
that  his  answer  was  filed  and  liis  trial  had,  and  he  acquitted  in  five  days'  less 
time  than  he  swore  it  would  take  him  to  prepare  for  trial. 

In  Judge  Peck's  case  his  application  stated  his  difficulties  in  obtaining  wit- 
nesses, the  distance  they  lived  from  \Yashington,  the  time  it  would  require  them 
to  travel  from  St.  Louis  to  Washington,  the  necessity  for  copying  and  obtaining 
records  ;  that  four  years  had  elapsed  since  the  transpiring  of  tbe  acts  complained 
of  against  him.  This  application  was  also  sworn  to.  If  the  learned  counsel 
remember  the  trial  of  Queen  Caroline  before  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain, 
when  time  was  granted  for  the  procurement  of  evidence  the  learned  attorney 
general  then  and  there  protested  against  this  granting  of  time  becoming  a  pre- 
cedent for  any  future  trial,  this  application  being  granted  merely  through 
courtesy  to  the  Queen,  when  witnesses  were  deemed  absolutely  necessary  to 
protect,  if  possible,  her  reputation.  This  application  differs  in  form  and  substance 
from  any  that  our  attention  has  been  directed  to,  made  by  the  counsel,  signed 
by  themselves,  and  sworn  to  by  no  one. 

Mr.  President,  the  rule  in  courts  of  law  in  applications  for  a  continuance  of 
the  cause  or  the  extension  oi  time  is,  that  reasons  good  and  sufficient  must  be  stated  ; 
if  for  want  of  a  witness  or  witnesses,  you  must  give  the  name  or  names,  the 
residence,  and  what  you  expect  to  prove  by  said  witness  or  witnesses,  and  that 
you  know  of  no  other  witnesses  present  by  whom  you  can  prove  the  same  facts, 
and  also  that  you  have  used  due  diligence  to  procure  the  evidence.  .This  appli- 
cation certainly  does  not  come  under  that  rule.  No  evidence  is  stated  that  is 
expected  to  be  produced.  The  name  of  no  witness  is  given  that  is  expected  to 
be  subpoenaed.  No  distance  is  mentioned  that  must  be  travelled.  No  residence 
is  mentioned.  It  is  not  stated  that  any  attempt  has  been  made  to  obtain  any 
evidence  or  to  even  have  witnesses  subpoenaed.  But,  sir,  for  what  is  this  appli- 
cation made,  and  upon  what  is  it  based  ?  It  is  based  upon  no  urgent  necessity 
for  time,  that  justice  may  be  done  in  the  premises,  but  merely  indicates  to  the 
Senate  that  time  is  desired  to  examine  authorities,  to  prepare  arguments,  and  for 
naught  else  can  we  discover  that  it  is  made. 

Sirs,  we  insist,  as  managers  on  the  part  .of  the  House  of  Representatives  and 
the  people,  that  no  more  time  shall  be  given  in  this  case  than  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  try  it ;  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  extension  for  counsel  to  pre- 
pare on  either  side ;  none  for  the  procurement  of  witnesses,  as  none  has  been 
asked  on  that  ground.  If  time  be  now  given  on  this  application,  perhaps  when 
issue  is  joined  and  the  time  now  extended  elapses,  we  may  be  met  by  an 
affidavit  asking  more  time  for  the  procurement  of  witnesses  in  some  distant  part 
of  the  country.  In  my  judgment  time  should  not  be  granted  for  the  trial  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  on  any  difFerent  application  from  that  required  to 
give  time  for  tlie  trial  of  the  poorest  and  humblest  citizen  in  the  land;  he  should 
be  tried  by  the  same  rules  and  held  amenable  to  the  same  laws  that  apply  to 
any  other  citizen.  Let  it  not  be  said  that  no  barm  may  come  to  the  country 
by  postponement  of  this  cause.  If  we  are  correct  in  our  charges  against  him, 
harm  may  come  by  a  postponement. 

We  have  charged  him  with  intentionally  violating  the  law;  we  have  charged 
him  with  obstructinsr  the  law.     Our  charges  are  of  such  a  character  as  show 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  71 

him  to  be  a  dangerous  person  to  remain  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  nation,  inas- 
much as  he,  instead  of  administering,  obstructs  the  haw.  It  is  said  that  time 
would  be  given  to  an  ordiuary  criminal  to  prepare  his  defence.  I  may  be  par- 
doned for  saying  that  we,  as  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  and  the 
country,  consider  the  President  a  criminal,  but  not  an  ordinary  one.  We  charge 
him  as  a  criminal,  and  are  bound  to  so  consider  him  until,  by  the  verdict  of  his 
triers,  he  shall  be  acquitted  of  all  the  articles  herein  presented.  The  learned 
counsel  for  the  respondent  do  not  agree  wilh  us  in  this  ;  nor  do  we  ask  the 
Si-nate  to  so  adjudge  until  our  charges  are  made  good  by  competent  testimony. 
The  course  in  the  case  of  ordinary  criminals  who  commit  crimes  or  misdemean- 
ors is,  or  may  be,  ditferent  from  the  course  in  this  case.  But,  sir,  ordinary 
criminals  are  either  arrested  and  put  under  bonds  or  imprisoned,  that  no  further 
violations  of  law  may  be  commi'ted  by  them  during-  the  pendency  of  their  trial. 
But,  sir,  in  this  case  the  President,  who  is  charged  with  violating  the  law,  has 
the  same  power  to  act  to-day  and  still  trample  the  laws  and  the  Constitution 
uuder  foot  that  he  had  the  day  we  charged  him  with  having  committed  these 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors ;  hence  the  reasons  for  not  granting  time  iu  this 
case  are  stronger  than  could  be  urged  in  the  case  of  an  ordinary  criminal. 

In  the  one  case  you  would  give  time  where  no  danger  might  arise  froui  doing 
so  ;  but  in  this  case  danger  to  the  people  might  arise,  and  hence  the  same 
reasoning  does  not  operate  in  this  that  does  in  the  case  of  an  ordinary  criminal; 
and  we  here  enter  our  protest  against  any  extension  of  the  time  whatever  in 
this  case.  "What  we  desire  is  that  the  replication  of  the  managers  may  be  filed 
to-morrow  at  one  o'clock,  and  then  we  may  be  permitted  to  state  our  case  to 
the  Senate  acting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  and  that  we  may  follow  it  up  with 
the  evidence,  and  that  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  may  then  state  their 
defence  and  produce  their  evidence,  and  that  on  the  issue  thus  made  the  court 
may  decide  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  party  accused. 

This  is  what  we  ask,  and  this  is  what  we  have  a  right  to  expect.  I  presume 
no  man  will  doubt  that  if  an  application  of  this  kind  were  made  to  a  court  at 
law  the  inquiry  would  be  :  "  Have  you  issued  your  subpoenas  ;  have  you  at- 
tempted to  get  your  witnesses ;  have  you  attempted  to  make  any  preparation  to 
try  thecause  1"  And  if  the  counsel  would  answer  that  they  had  made  no  prep- 
aration whatever  ;  that  they  had  issued  no  subpoenas;  had  made  no  attempt  to 
procure  witnesses  or  get  ready  for  the  trial  of  the  cause,  but  merely  desired 
time  for  thought  and  reflection,  the  application  would  certainly  be  denied.  A.nd 
against  the  granting  of  this,  not  made  upon  the  oath  of  any  pei  son,  not  signed 
by  the  President,  and  merely  intended  for  the  benefit  of  counsel,  we,  the  mana- 
gers, in  the  name  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  whole  people  of  this 
republic,  do  most  solemnly  protest. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  President,  I  may  be  allowed  very  briefly  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  this  honorable  court  to  the  attitude  of  the  cause  before  them,  as  Ave 
conceive  it  to  be.  Other  courts,  except  such  as  arc  called  for  a  special  trial 
upon  a  special  and  limited  authority,  have  established  regulations  guarding  the 
rights  of  defendants,  either  in  civil  or  in  criminal  prosecutions,  with  established 
terms  of  court  and  well  recognized  and  understood  habits  of  the  conduct  of 
judicial  business.  In  our  estimate  of  the  course  of  this  proceeding  before  this 
honorable  court  we  have  not  yet  arrived  at  a  time  when  it  was  the  duty  of  coun- 
sel or  was  at  the  charge  of  the  accused  to  know  or  consider  what  the  issues 
■were  upon  which  he  was  to  prepare  on  his  side  or  expect  on  the  other  the  pro- 
duction of  proof.  Beyond  that,  we  feel  no  occasion  to  present  by  affidavit  to 
tliis  honorable  court  a  matter  so  completely  within  its  cognizance  that  our  time 
to  plead  was  fixed  so  as  to  offer  us  but  eight  working  days  for  that  duty  of 
counsel. 

Obedient  to  the  orders  of  the  court,  ob?ervant,  as  we  propose  at  all  times  to 
be,  of  that  public  necessity  and  duty  which  require  on  the  part  of  the  President 


72  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

of  the  ITnitfd  States  and  liis  counsel,  not  less  than  on  the  part  of  the  House  of 
Repret=entative.s  and  its  managers,  that  dih'gence  should  be  used,  and  that  we 
his  counsel  should  be  withdrawn  from  all  other  profi^ssional  or  personal  avoca- 
tions, we  yet  cannot  recognize  in  the  presence  of  this  court  that  that  is  an  ao- 
swer  to  an  application  for  reasonable  time  to  consider  and  prepare,  to  subpoena 
and  produce,  in  all  things  to  arrange  and  in  all  things  to  be  ready,  for  the  actual 
procedure  of  the  trial.  Nor,  with  great  respect  to  the  honorable  managers  in 
this  great  procedure,  do  we  esteem  it  a  sufficient  answer  to  our  desire  to  be  re- 
lieved from  undue  pressure  of  haste  Ujion  our  part  that  equal  pressure  of  haste 
may  have  been  used  on  the  other.  We  do  not  so  understand  the  question  of 
the  just  and  orderly  protection  of  public  interests  as  that  this  compensation  for 
haste  required  from  the  defendant  may  be  demanded  by  equal  haste  being  neces- 
sai-j  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution. 

But,  beyond  this,  the  honorable  managers  give  us  more  professional  credit 
than  we  are  entitled  to  when  they  assume  to  saj  that  our  standard  of  our 
duty  and  our  means  and  our  needs  for  properly  performing  it  are  neces- 
sarily to  be  measured  by  theirs.  Nor  do  they  sufficiently  attend,  as  I  say 
with  great  respect,  to  the  position  of  the  accused  and  his  counsel  in  reference  to 
the  preparation  of  a  defence  M'ith  that  which  is  occupied  by  the  managers  and 
by  the  House  of  Representatives  in  refeience  to  the  explorations  and  the  pro- 
vision and  the  preparation  of  the  accusation  and  of  its  evidence;  for  during  a 
very  considerable  period,  with  the  coercive  power  of  summoning  witnesses  and 
calling  for  papers  which  rightfully  belong  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  all 
this  matter  upon  the  one  side  and  the  other,  to  a  certain  extent,  may  have  been 
actually  explored  by  them,  and,  as  is  known,  to  a  very  great  extent,  certainly 
has  been. 

Now  if  this  honorable  court  will  give  the  counsel  for  the  President  of  the 
United  States  due  respect  in  regard  to  the  position  in  which  we  present  our- 
selves, due  respect  to  our  statement,  it  will  understand  that  up  to  this  time  the 
consideration  of  the  dcgn^e  and  measure,  of  the  means  and  occasions,  for  proof 
has  not  yet  possibly  received  our  practical  and  responsible  attention,  and  that 
within  the  limits  of  this  accusation,  unless  it  shall  be  narrowed  more  than  we 
expect  by  the  replication  to  be  filed,  there  may  be,  there  must  be,  a  very  con- 
siderable range  of  sunjocts  and  a  very  considerable  variety  of  practical  consid- 
erations that  will  need  to  come  under  the  responsible  judgment  and  for  the 
responsible  action  of  counsel. 

It  would  seem  to  me  that  we  are  placed  thus  far  in  the  attitude  of  a  defend- 
ant in  a  civil  or  in  a  public  prosecution  who  upon  the  issue  joined  desires  time 
to  prepare  for  trial.  The  ordinary  course  in  such  a  case  is  that  as  matter  of 
right,  as  matter  of  absolute  and  universal  custom,  one  is  not  required  or  ex- 
pected to  givCsany  cause  of  actual  obstruction  and  difficulty  in  reference  to 
a  continuance  to  what  is  the  term  of  the  court,  doubtless  in  most  cases  to 
occur  within  a  brief  period  after  the  issue  is  joined.  This  court  having  no  such 
arrangement,  and  no  such  possible  arrangemiMit  of  its  affairs  in  advance,  we  are 
obliged  at  each  stage  of  regular  proc(.'e(ling  to  ask  your  attention  as  to  what  you 
will  provide  and  consider  in  the  p;irticidar  case  is,  according  to  the  general  nature 
of  the  procedure  and  the  uiulerstood  attitude  of  both  parties  to  it,  a  just  and  rea- 
sonable proposition  to  be  made  by  us  as  to  the  time  that  should  be  allowed  for 
the  preparation  in  all  respects  for  this  tri;d  after  the  issue  shall  have  been  joined. 
We  do  not  ask  any  more  time  than  in  the  interest  of  justice  and  duty  under  the 
actual  circumstances  of  this  case  should  be  given  to  the  poorest  man  in  thecountry. 
The  measure  of  justice  and  of  duty  has  no  respect  whatever  to  poverty  or  sta- 
tion. The  actual  nature  of  the  proceeding,  the  actual  circum-itances  of  the 
case  are  to  furnish  the  rule  for  the  exercise  of  whatevtu-  falls  within  the  discre- 
tion of  the  court.  If  during  the  trial,  on  the  part  of  the  managers,  it  should 
appear  that,  by  accident  or  by  any  other  just  excuse,  the  attendance  of  a  proper 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  73 

witncps  on  their  pnrt  was  roqnirod,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  this  court,  in  the 
administration  of  justice,  to  allow  proper  time  and  delay  for  the  production  of 
the  witness.  Anil  so,  upon  our  part,  if,  foreseen  or  unforeseen,  such  an  occasiou 
sl'.onld  arise,  it  would  be  a  necessary  duty  of  the  court  to  take  it  into  considera- 
tion and  provide  for  it  as  the  occasion  arose.  The  proposition  that  we  now 
make  to  the  court,  and,  unless  there  is  to  be  a  dejiarture  from  the  general  habit 
of  all  courts  in  such  a  predicament  of  a  procedure,  what  we  expect  their  action 
according  to  and  u[)on  is  this  :  that  after  issue  joined  we  should  have  a  reason- 
able time  before  we  should  be  considered  as  bound  to  be  in  the  condition  of 
preparation  for  the  proceeding  in  the  cause. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  the  managers  on  the  part 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  have  determined,  so  for  as  may  lie  in  their 
power,  that  this  case  shall  not  be  taken  out  of  the  line  of  the  precedents  ;  there- 
fore it  is  that  we  will  resist  all  applications  for  unreasonable  delay.  The  counsel 
for  the  respondent  M-ho  has  jast  taken  his  seat  might  well,  in  view  of  the  re- 
marks M'hich  he  submitted,  have  waited  until  issue  joined  before  presenting 
this  motion ;  but  it  is  here,  and  we  are  prepared  here  and  now  to  take  the  mo- 
tion as  we  find  it,  and  deal  with  it  as  its  form  and  merit  of  substance  require. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  first  step  taken  by  the  counsel  for  the  re- 
spondent on  the  13th  instant  was  in  violation  of  the  precedent  established  by  the 
cases  which  have  been  tried  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Looking  into 
the  case  of  Judge  Chase,  we  find  that  on  the  return  day  of  the  summons  he  ap- 
peared and  made  application  f  n- time  to  answer;  but  he  did  not  stop  at  this;  he 
coupled  with  his  motion  for  time  to  answer  a  request  for  time  to  prepare  for  his 
trial.  He  supported  his  application  by  his  solemn  affidavit,  stating  that  he  could 
not  possibly  prepare  his  case  for  trial  before  the  5th  day  of  the  succeeding 
JIarch,  and  therefore  he  asked  an  allowance  of  time  for  preparation  for  trial 
until  the  commencement  of  the  next  session  of  Congress,  as  the  then  session 
would  expire  on  the  4rh  day  of  that  month. 

In  his  application  he  disclosed  the  necessities  inducing  his  request,  among 
which  were  the  distances  lying  between  the  capital  and  the  places  where  he  was 
to  ascertain  the  facts  and  circumstances  necessary  for  his  defence,  and  to  find 
the  witnesses  to  support  it.  After  due  consideration  the  Senate  overruled  his 
application,  and  required  him  to  answer  on  the  4th  day  of  the  succeeding 
February,  thus  allowing  him,  both  for  answer  and  preparation,  thirty  days 
instead  of  eleven  months,  as  prayed  for  in  his  motion  And  what  was  the 
result  in  that  case?  Why,  that  on  the  1st  day  of  March  succeeding,  four  days 
before  the  time  which  he  stated  in  his  afiidavit  would  be  required  tor  him  to 
prepare  for  trial,  the  cause  had  been  tried  on  such  perfect  preparation  that  it 
resulted  in  the  acquittal  of  the  respondent.  The  Senate  judged  better  than  he 
of  the  difficulties  of  his  case  and  of  the  time  required  to  overcome  them.  So 
in  the  case  of  Judge  Peck,  when  he  appeared  on  the  return  day  of  the  writ,  it 
having  been  served  on  him  but  three  days  prior  to  the  return,  he  made  his  joint 
application  for  time  to  answer  and  time  to  prepare  for  trial,  and  supported  it  by 
his  solemn  afiidavit.  He  was  granted  the  time  he  desired  to  prepare  his  answer, 
when,  by  an  adjournment  of  Congress,  his  case  went  over  for  trial  uutil  the 
next  session. 

But  we  have  had  no  such  course  pursued  in  tliis  case.  On  the  return  day  of 
the  summons,  notwithstanding  the  rule  of  the  Senate  required  on  that  day  and. 
at  that  time  the  filing  of  the  answer,  we  were  met  first  with  an  application  for 
foi  ty  days'  leave  in  which  to  prepare  an  answer.  The  honorable  Senate  allowed 
ten  days ;  and  now,  at  the  expiration  of  that  time,  we  find  a  most  elaborate 
answer  presented  by  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  ;  and  in  it  is  embodied  the 
strongest  argument  against  any  delay  in  this  case  that  has  come  from  any  source 
or  is  known  to  any  person ;  and  that  is,  that  the  respondent,  by  his  answer,  affirms 
as  lying  within  his  rightful  powers  under  the  Constitution  the  right  to  do  the 


74  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

very  acts  which  we  have  charged  against  him  at  the  bar  of  this  Senate  as  crimi- 
nal acts,  and  persists  in  his  defiance  of  the  hiws  and  in  the  wickedness  of  the 
course  which  the  lepresentatives  of  the  people  have  challenged.  This  might  not 
be  a  weighty  consideration  in  an  ordinary  case.  It  might  not  weigh  much  if, 
instead  of  the  present  respondent,  we  had  some  other  officer  of  the  government 
charged  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate  with  the  offences  enumerated  in  the  articles  to 
which  he  has  this  day  answered. 

But  in  this  case  it  is  of  weight,  and  should  have  due  consideration.  Why  is 
it  of  weight  1  Brcause  the  respondent  has  devolved  on  him  not  only  the  duty 
which  rests  upon  the  citizen  to  obey  the  law,  but  also  the  higher  duty  to  exe- 
cute the  law,  and  is  clothed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  country  with  the  whole 
executive  power  of  the  nation,  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  discharge  faithfully 
the  duty  thus  imposed.  He  has  not,  in  the  judgment  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  discharged  this  duty  as  his  oath  of  office  requires,  but  has  dis- 
regarded the  law  and  defied  its  authority.  For  his  failure  to. discharge  it,  for 
his  acts  of  positive  transgression  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  he  is  arraigned  at  the 
bar  of  the  Senate,  and  presenting  answer  justifies  the  acts  which  make  up  his 
grave  offences,  claims  the  right  to  repeat  and  extend  them,  and  now  asks  for 
time  that  he  may  further  imperil  the  nation  while  he  endeavors  to  make  good 
his  unlawful  assumptions  of  power,  in  the  mean  time  holding  in  his  hands  under 
and  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  the  executive  power  of  the  republic.  No 
provision  having  been  made  for  its  temporary  surrender,  he  retains  that  power, 
disturbing  the  repose  of  the  country  and  interfering  with  every  interest  of  busi- 
ness and  trade  and  commerce,  by  prolonging  this  unfortunate  conflict  between 
the  two  departments  of  the  government. 

Mr.  President  and  Senators,  we  feel  it  to  be  our  most  solemn  duty  to  urge 
upon  you  in  the  name  of  the  representatives  of  the  people,  and  of  the  people 
themselves,  that  speedy  progress  toward  a  conclusion  of  this  case  which  shall 
guard  the  rights  and  the  interests  of  the  people,  their  laws  and  their  govern- 
ment, and  at  the  same  time  observe  with  reasonable  care  the  rights  belonging 
to  the  respondent.  The  present  application  for  delay  is  without  precedent  in 
the  cases  heretofore  tried  by  the  Senate,  and  were  it  not  for  the  order  adopted 
by  this  body  on  the  13th  instant,  which  now  must  be  regarded  as  a  rule,  this 
application  could  not  be  made,  as  that  rule  is  the  only  thing  which  takes  this 
case  out  of  the  line  of  precedents  to  which  I  have  referred.  It  should  have 
been  coupled  with  the  other  motion  made  before  the  adoption  of  the  rule,  and 
the  whole  case  so  far  as  respects  causes  of  delay  in  this  proceeding  disclosed 
at  the  threshold.     The  following  order  constitutes  the  rule  to  which  I  refer: 

Ordered,  That  unless  otlierwise  ordered  by  the  Senate  for  cause  .shown,  tlie  trial  of  the 
pending  impeachment  shall  proceed  immediately  after  replication  shall  be  filed. 

Now,  I  submit  that  the  "cause  shown"  in  this  application  is  not  such  cause 
as  will  justify  the  Senate  in  the  exercise  of  a  sound  discretion  in  granting  the 
time  which  has  been  asked  for  by  the  respondent  to  enable  him  to  prepare  for 
trial.  It  does  not  show  cause  of  substance,  and  presents  mere  questions  of 
convenience. 

Mr.  Howard.  Will  the  manager  please  read  that  order  again  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Wll-S().\.  "  Ordered,  That  unh-ss  otherwise  ordi-red  by  the 
Senate  for  cause  shown,  the  trial  of  the  j)endiug  impeachment  shall  proceed 
immediately  after  replication  shall  be  filed." 

It  will  be  observed — the  interru])tion  suggests  it  to  my  mind — that  in  view 
of  this  rule  the  Senate  cannot,  with  due  regard  to  its  own  action,  grant  this 
extension  of  time,  because  a  sound  discretion  cannot  be  exercised  under  the 
rule  and  upon  this  application  until  issue;  be  joined  between  the  people  and  their 
representatives  and  the  respondent,  though  we  waive  this  objection  in  the 
interest  of  the  economy  of  time.  But,  as  I  have  said,  this  application,  consid- 
ered now  or  at  any  other  time,  must  be  addressed  to  the  sound  discretion  of  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  75 

Senate,  and  it  is  for  us  to  remember  tliat  a  sound  discretion  acts  not  without 
rule  to  guide  it.  The  discretion  to  which  such  motions  are  addressed  must  be 
directed  by  hiw — "  it  must  be  g-overned  by  rule,  not  by  humor ;  it  must  not  be 
arbitrary,  vague,  and  fancifuh  but  k^gal  and  rtgular." 

And  I  therefore  deny  that  the  application  and  the  statements  therein  con- 
tained do  or  can  convey  to  the  mind  of  this  Senate  that  view  of  this  case  which 
■  must  be  presented  by  the  respondent  in  order  to  justify  you  in  saying,  in 
the  exercise  of  a  sound  discretion,  that  one  hour's  delay  should  be  gianted  ;  for 
there  is  nothing  of  a  substantive  character  affecting  the  merits  of  the  case  dis- 
closed upon  which  it  can  act. 

What  is  the  application  ?  It  is  substantially  that  counsel  have  not  had  time 
to  prepare  and  become  familiar  Avith  the  case,  therefore  they  must  be  allowed 
opportunity  to  educate  themselves  in  the  particular  matter  committed  to  their 
charge.  I  apprehend  that  that  is  not  good  cause  upon  which  this  Senate  may 
act  and  grant  the  prayer  of  this  present  application.  More  than  that,  it  will  be 
observed  that  the  respondent  has  been  carefully  kept  out  of  this  case  on  these 
motions.  In  all  other  cases  in  this  country  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge, 
the  respondent  has  asked  in  his  own  name,  supporting  his  request  by  his  affi- 
davit, for  delay  of  proceedings  ;  judges  summoned  from  the  bench  and  brought 
to  this  bar  have  presented  their  petitions  in  person,  supported  by  their  solemn 
affidavits,  and  asked  upon  the  facts  stated  by  them,  covering  and  disclosing  all 
of  the  features  of  their  cases,  and  unfolding  their  line  of  defence,  a  reasonable 
time  in  which  to  prepare  answer  and  to  prepare  for  trial.  But  it  is  not  so  here  ; 
and  we  have  to  ask  that  while  this  case  is  thus  kept  out  of  the  ordinary  rule 
and  uniform  practice  of  former  cases,  the  Senate  will  regai  d  in  some  degree  the 
voice  of  the  representatives  as  presci^ted  by  the  managers,  and  put  this  re- 
spondent upon  his  speedy  trial,  to  the  end  that  peace  may  be  restored  to  the 
country  by  the  healing  efficacy  of  a  determination  of  this  prosecution — the  resto- 
ration of  harmony  between  the  two  contending  departments  of  the  government, 
and  to  the  further  end  that  all  things  may  again  move  on  in  this  land  as  they 
were  accustomed  in  the  times  before  this  unfortunate  conflict  and  its  disturbing 
results  occurred.  Therefore,  Senators,  in  the  name  of  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives, and  of  the  people  in  whose  names  they  have  acted  in  this  behalf,  we 
ask  that  this  application,  as  it  is  now  presented  and  considered,  may  be  denied 
by  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  on  the  13th  instant,  when  we  entered  our 
appearance,  and  when  we  supposed  we  had  nothing  to  do  but  to  enter  our  ap- 
pearance and  ask  for  time  to  answer,  the  honorable  court  made  an  order  that  we 
should  have  until  the  23d,  this  day,  to  file  our  answer.  They  gave  to  the 
manageis  leave  to  file  replication,  without  limiting  them  at  all  as  to  time,  but 
provided  that  upon  the  filing  of  the  replication  the  case  should  proceed  to  trial 
unless  reasonable  cause  should  be  shown  for  further  delay.  Then  the  honor- 
able court  meant  us  to  have  time  to  prepare  for  trial  if  we  reasonably  showed 
that  it  was  necessary. 

Now,  what  has  happened,  Mr.  Chief  Justice?  Wliat  has  been  stated  to  this 
honorable  court,  composed  in  a  great  measure  of  member.-*  of  the  bar,  by  mem- 
bers of  the  bar  that  I  hope  have  sufficient  standing  with  this  court  to  have  some 
credit,  at  least,  for  professional  statements  made  upon  their  honor?  What  have 
we  stated!  That  since  we  had  this  leave  every  hour  and  every  moment  has 
been  occupied  with  the  pleadings;  not  an  instant  lost,  not  a  counsel  absent. 
We  have  refused  all  other  occupation ;  we  have  devoted  ourselves  exclusively 
to  this  day  and  night,  and  I  am  sorry  to  be  obliged  to  say  two  days  sacred  to 
other  duty.  There  has  been  not  a  moment's  delay.  And  how  has  this  time 
been  occupied,  Mr.  Cliief  Justice  ?  Occupied,  every  instant  of  it,  in  the  prepa- 
ration of  this  answer.  Allow  me  to  say  to  the  honorable  court  that  it  was  not 
until  fifteen  minutes  before  we  came  here  that  our  document  was  ready. 


76  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Certainly,  it  was  iutendcil  n)i  xhn  13th  to  give  us  time  not  merely  to  prepare 
our  answer,  but  to  prepare  fnr  that  still  more  material  thing,  the  trial.  And 
now  T  hope  I  shall  obtain  creflit  with  the  honorable  court  when  I  say  that  we 
have  been  so  pressed  witii  this  duty  of  making  up  the  issue  and  preparing  the 
answer  that  we  have  not  had  an  opportunity  of  asking  the  President '''"What 
witnesses  will  you  have?"  Nay,  Ave  have  bein  so  pressed  that  to  the  communica- 
tions which  we  have  received  from  the  honorable  managers  in  regard  to  adm  ssions 
and  to  facilitate  proof,  we  have  been  obliged  to  say,  in  reply,  "  We  have  not, 
gentlemen,  as  yet.  a  moment's  time  to  consider  your  communications."  All  we 
know  of  this  case  is  that  it  refers  to  transactions  not  only  here,  but  at  Cleveland 
and  St  Louis,  at  distant  points.  They  have  sent  us  a  list  of  witnesses  who  are 
to  come  from  these  various  places  as  to  matters  in  regard  to  which  they  expect 
to  make  proof  against  us  as  to  what  v/as  said  and  done  at  those  places,  and  as 
yet  I  do  not  know  a  single  witness  whom  the  President  wants  to  call  in  his 
defence.  I  know  that  he  wants  to  call  witnesses,  but  I  have  not  yet  had  an 
opportunity  of  knowing  who  those  witnesses  are.  We  have  not  subpoenaed 
one.  We  do  not  know  the  name  of  any  one  except  those  who  happen  to  live 
here  whom  we  shall  want,  nor  which  of  them. 

Now,  mark  all  this  time  the  advantage  that  the  honorable  managers  have  had 
over  us.  As  I  understand  it,  and  I  suppose  it  will  not  be  denied,  almost  every 
day  since  they  have  been  engaged  in  the  preparation  for  the  trial.  Their  arti- 
cles were  framed  long  ago.  While  we  were  engaged  in  preparing  our  answer 
they  have  been,  as  I  understand,  most  industriously  engaged  in  preparing  the 
witnesses.  Day  after  day  witnesses  have  been  called  before  them  and  testi- 
mony taken.  We  have  had  no  such  power  ;  we  have  had  no  such  opportunity — 
not  the  slightest.  We  are  here  without  any  preparation  in  the  way  of  witnesses, 
without  having  had  a  moment  to  consult  with  our  client  or  among  ourselves. 

The  gentlemen  say  that  our  anxiety  is  to  prepare  ourselves,  whereas  they  are 
already  prepared,  completely  prepared,  so  far  as  counsel  need  prepare  them- 
selves. I  am  very  happy  to  hear  that  they  are.  I  should  be  very  far  from 
saying  that  I  am  equally  prepared.  1  have  had  no  time  to  look  to  anything 
else  except  this  necessary  and  all-absorbing  duty  which  we  have  just  completed. 
Now,  if  the  Senate  say  we  shall  go  on  when  this  replication  comes  in,  which,  I 
am  told,  is  to  come  in  to-morrow,  they  will  put  me  in  a  position  that  1  have 
never  b('en  in  before  in  all  my  practice  anywhere,  with  a  client  and  a  case  and 
a  formidable  array  against  me,  and  yet  not  a  witness  summoned,  not  a  document 
prepared — all  unarmed  and  defenceless. 

I  beg  this  honorable  court  to  treat  us  with  some  leniency,  to  give  us  time. 
If  you  cannot  give  us  all  we  ask  give  us,  at  least,  some  time  within  which,  by 
the  utmost  diligence,  we  can  make  that  preparation  we  deem  to  be  useful,  and 
without  which  we  are  unsafe  and  unprepared. 

The  gentlemen  complain  that  we  ought  to  have  been  ready  on  the  13th. 
They  read  against  us  a  rule  that  that  was  the  day  fixed  for  not  only  the 
aj)pearance  but  the  filing  of  the  answer.  What !  They  read  out  of  a  rule  that 
old  formula  that  has  come  down  to  us  for  five  hundred  yearSj  the  order  to 
"appear  and  answer" — the  same  language  which  was  adopted  at  that  early  time 
when  pleadings  were  ore  ttnus  and  by  parol,  when  the  defendant  was  called  and 
answered  immediately.  But  even  our  old  independent  and  sturdy  ancestors 
wnuld  not  answer  on  that  day,  although  they  were  to  answer  by  word  of  mouth  ; 
and  we  know  that  always  they  demanded-  time  and  always  had  tim<-,  "leave  lo 
im])arl  "  a  day  to  answer. 

We  have  j)reserved  the  same  phraseology  in  our  subse(juent  proceedings. 
The  summons  is  stdl  to  a  defi^ndant  "  You  an^  hereby  smiunoned  to  appear  on 
such  a  day  and  answer;"  but  who  ever  supposcul  he  was  then  to  file  his  answer? 
What  lawyer  that  ever  wrote  a  declaration  does  not  recollect  the  beginning  of 
it,  "The  defendant  was  summoned  to  appear  and  answer;"  and  yet  every  law- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  77 

yer  knows  flint  the  time  for  the  clcfcndant's  answer  has  not  yet  come.  Well, 
our  anawer  has  been  presented  No  dny  has  yet  peremptorily  been  fixed  for 
trial.  The  Senate  said  to  us,  "Yon  shall  go  to  trial  when  the  replication  is  filed, 
provided  yon  do  not  show  good  cause."  The  canse  we  show  is,  may  it  please 
the  honorable  conrt,  that  we  have  not  had  one  moment's  time  to  prepare  for  trial. 

Mr.  Howard  and  Mr.  Manager  Bingham  rose. 

The  ClilKF  JuSTiCK.  The  Senator  from  Michigan. 

Mr.  Manager  Bi\gham.  On  the  part  of  the  managers  I  beg  to  respond  to 
what  has  just  been  said. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the  President  to  the  rules  that 
govern  the  body. 

Mr.  Manager  BiiXGHAM.  I  will  only  say  that  we  have  used  but  thirty-five  of 
the  minutes  of  the  time  allowed  us  under  the  rule. 

The  Chikf  Jdstick.  The  Chair  announced  at  the  last  sitting  that  he  would 
not  undertake  to  restrict  counsel  as  to  luimber  without  the  further  order  of  the 
Senate,  the  rule  not  being  very  intelligible  to  him.  He  will  state  further  that 
when  counsel  make  a  motion  to  the  court  the  counsel  who  makes  the  motion  has 
invariably  the  right  to  close  the  argument  upon  it. 

Several  Sexators.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  with  all  respect  touching  the  sugges- 
tion just  made  by  the  presiding  ofiicer  of  the  Senate,  I  beg  leave  to  remind  the 
Senate,  and  I  am  instructed  to  do  so  by  my  associate  managers,  that  from  time 
immemorial  in  proceedings  of  this  kind  the  right  of  the  Commons  in  England, 
and  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  in  the  United  States,  to  close  the  de- 
bate has  not  been,  by  any  rule,  settled  against  them.  On  the  contrary, in  Lord 
Melville's  case,  if  I  may  be  allowed  and  pardoned  for  making  reference  to  it, 
the  last  case,  I  believe,  reported  in  England,  Lord  Erskine  presiding,  when  the 
very  question  was  made  which  has  now  been  submitted  by  the  presiding  officer 
to  the  Senate,  one  of  the  managers  of  the  House  of  Commons  arose  in  his  place 
and  said  that  he  owed  it  to  the  Commons  to  protest  against  the  immemoriHl  usage 
being  denied  to  the  Commons  of  England  to  be  heard  in  reply  to  whatever  might 
be  said  on  behalf  of  the  accused  at  the  bar  of  the  peers. 

In  that  case  the  language  of  the  manager,  Mr.  Giles,  was  : 

My  lord.s,  it  was  not  my  iutention  to  trouble  your  lordsliips  witli  any  observatior..s  upon 
the  arg'Uiiieiit.s  you  have  lieard;  and  if  I  now  do  so,  it  is  only  tor  the  sake  of  iusistiiip;'  upon 
and  niaiotainiijg;  tliat  right  which  the  coiiuiionfio.iiteiid  is  their  ackncwledg-ed  and  niidoiibted 
privilege,  the  riglit  of  being  heard  after  the  counsel  for  the  del'eudaiit  has  made  his  observa- 
t\qfis  in  reply.  It  has  been  invariably  admitted  when  required. — State  Trials,  vol,  29,  p. 
769 ;  44  to  40  George  III. 

Lord  Erskine  "  responded  the  right  of  the  Commons  to  reply  was  never 
doubted  or  disputed." 

Following  ihe  suggestion  of  the  learned  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his 
seat,  I  believe  that  when  that  utterance  was  made  it  had  been  the  continued 
rule  in  England  for  nearly  five  hundred  years. 

In  this  tribunal,  in  the  first  case  of  impeachment  that  ever  was  tried  before 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  (I  refer  to  the  ca.-M;  of  Blount.)  the  Senate  will 
see  by  a  reference  to  it  that  although  the  accused  had  the  aflirmative  of  the 
issue,  althougii  he  interposed  a  plea  to  the  jurisdiction,  the  argument  was  closed 
in  the  case  by  the  manager  of  the  House,  Mr.  Harper.  (Wliarton's  State  Trials 
of  the  United  States,  pp.  314.  315.) 

Wlien  I  rose,  however,  at  the  time  the  honorable"  senator  spoke,  I  rose  for  the 
purpose  of  making  some  response  to  the  remarks  last  made  for  the  accused  ;  but 
as  the  presiding  officer  has  interposed  the  suggestion  to  the  Senate  whether  the 
managers  can  further  reply,  I  do  not  deem  it  proper  for  me  to  proceed  further 
until  the  Senate  shall  pass  upon  this  question. 


78  IMPEACHMENT   OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Howard.  Mr.  President,  if  the  discussion  is  closed  on  the  part  of  the 
managers,  and  the  counsel 

Jlr.  ^Manager  Bi.ngham.  I  desire  to  have  the  question  submitted. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  was  about  to  move  that  this  motion  be  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Manag'er  Bincjham.  1  desire,  if  the  senator  from  Michigan  will  excuse  me, 
to  be  heard  in  response  to  what  has  just  fallen  from  the  lips  of  the  counsel  for 
the  accused,  but  deem  it  my  dixty  not  to  proceed  without  the  consent  of  the 
Senate,  inasmuch  as  the  presiding  officer  has  already  suggested  to  the  Senate 
that  the  managers  could  not  be  further  heard  ;  in  other  words,  could  not  be  per- 
mitted to  make  a  final  reply. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  motion  of  the  senator  from  Michigan  is  that 

]Mr.  Manager  Boutwrll.  Mr.  President,  will  the  Chair  pardon  me  1 

The  Chief  Justice.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwrll.  This  seems  to  the  managers,  and  to  myself  espe- 
cially, a  matter  of  so  much  moment  as  to  whether  the  managers  are  to  be  heard 
finally 

Mr.  Howard.  Excuse  me  a  moment.  It  was  not  my  intention  to  cut  off 
debate  or  discussion  on  the  part  of  the  managers  or  the  counsel  for  the  accused ; 
and  so  I  announced.  If  there  is  any  desire  on  the  part  of  either  to  proceed  ivith 
the  discussion,  I  withdraw  my  motion  to  lay  the  order  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Now,  Mr.  President,  if  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the 
Senate 

JMr.  Johnson.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  twentieth  rule. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  will  be  read. 

The  Secretai'Y  read  rule  twenty,  as  follows  : 

20.  All  preliminary  or  interlocutory  questions,  and  all  motions,  sliall  be  argued  for  not 
exceeding  one  hour  on  each  side,  uules.s  the  Senate  shall  by  order  extend  the  time. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  We  have  used  but  thirty-five  minutes  of  our  time. 

Mr.  Grimes.  What  is  the  question  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  managers  desire  to  proceed  1 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Yes,  sir;   with  the  President's  leave. 

Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  deejdy  regret  that  the  counsel  for  the 
accused  have  made  any  intimation  here  that  the  question  is  made  or  intended  to 
be  made  by  the  managers  touching  the  entire  sincerity  with  which  they  act 
before  this  tribunal.  1  am  sure  that  it  was  furthest  from  the  purpose  of  my 
associates,  as  I  know  it  was  entirely  foreign  to  any  purpose  of  mine  to  question 
for  a  moment  their  sincerity.  The  gentleman  who  ti>ok  his  seat  spoke  of  their 
having  presented  this  application  upon  their  honor.  No  man  questions  tlu'ir 
honor;  no  man  who  knows  them  will  question  their  honor;  but  we  maybe  par- 
doned for  saying  that  it  is  unusual,  altogether  unusual,  on  questions  of  this  sort, 
to  allow  continuances  to  be  obtained  upon  a  mere  point  of  honor !  The  rule  of 
the  Senate,  which  was  adopted  on  the  13th  instant,  is  a  rule  well  understood, 
and  is  in  the  language  of  the  ordinary  rule  which  obtains  in  courts  of  law  ;  that 
is  to  say,  the  trial  shall  proceed  upon  replication  filed,  except,  for  cause  shown, 
further  time  be  allowed. 

1  submit  that  a  question  of  this  magnitude  has  never  been  decided  upon  a 
m(;re  presentation  of  a  stattnncnt  of  counsc;],  in  this  country  or  in  any  country. 
To  speak  more  plainly,  a  motion  for  continuance  arising  on  a  (juestion  of  this 
sort,  1  venture  to  say,  has  never  been  decided  .iffirmatively  upon  such  an  issue 
on  a  mere  statement  of  coufisel.  If  Andrew  .Johnson,  the  accused  at  this  bar, 
has  witnesses  that  were  not  within  the  process  of  this  court  up  to  this  day,  but 
whose  attendance  he  can  hope;  to  procure  if  tinu;  b(;  allowed  him,  he  can  make 
affidavit  before  this  tribunal  tliat  they  are  mateiial,  and  set  forth  in  his  affidavit 
wiiat  he  expects  to  prove  by  them.  I  concede  that  upon  such  a  showing  there 
would  be  something  ujion  which  the  Senate;  niiglit  properly  act. 

But,  sir,  instead  of  that,  he  throws  himself  back,  upon  his  counsel,  and  they 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  79 

make  tlieir  statement  here  that  they  M'ill  require  thirty  flays  of  time  in  wliich 
to  prepare  for  trial.  He  sent  these  gentlemen  to  the  bar  of  this  tribunal  on  tbe 
13th  instant,  upon  their  honor,  to  notify  the  Senate  that  it  would  retjuire  him 
forty  days  to  prepare  an  answer.  Now,  he  sends  them  back  upon  their  honor 
to  notify  the  Senate  that  it  will  require  him  thirty  days  to  prepare  for  trial.  I 
take  it  that  the  counsel  for  the  accused  have  quire  as  much  time  for  preparation, 
if  this  trial  shall  proceed  to-morrow,  as  have  the  managers  on  behalf  of  the 
House  of  Representative?,  who  are  charged  by  the  people  with  duties  from  day 
to  day  iu  the  other  end  of  the  Capitol  which  they  are  not  permitted  to  lay 
aside. 

But,  sir,  I  think  upon  the  answer  made  here  this  day  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  unless  very  good  cause  be  shown,  and  that,  too,  under  the  obli- 
gation of  his  own  oath  at  the  bar  of  this  Senate,  not  another  hour's  continuance 
should  be  allowed  him  after  the  case  shall  have  been  put  at  issue.  We  ask  leave 
to  suggest  to  the  Senate  that  we  hoped  on  to-morrow,  by  leave  of  the  people's 
repi'esentatives,  to  put  this  case  at  issue  by  filing  a  replication.  That  is  all  the 
delay  we  desire.  The  accused  has  had  the  opportunity  f  )r  process  ever  since 
the  13th  instant,  at  least.  He  is  guilty  of  grave  negligence  in  this  behalf — I  do 
n'it  speak  of  the  counsel ;  I  speak  of  the  accused.  If  he  had  witnesses  to  sub- 
poena, why  was  he  not  about  it  1  And  yet,  sir,  not  a  single  summons  has  been 
required  by  him  under  the  rule  and  order  of  the  Senate  to  bring  to  its  bar  a 
single  witness  to  testify  in  his  behalf.  He  totally  neglects  the  whole  issue,  and 
comes  here  with  an  attempt  at  a  confession  and  avoidance  of  the  matter  presented 
by  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  tells  this  Senate  and  tells  the  country  that 
he  defies  their  power,  trifling — I  repeat  it  in  the  hearing  of  the  Senate — trifling 
with  the  great  power  which  the  people,  for  wise  purposes,  have  placed  in  the 
hands  of  their  representatives  and  their  senators  in  Congress  assembled. 

AVhy,  sir,  what  is  this  power  of  impeachment  worth  if  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  holding  the  whole  executive  power  of  the  nation,  is  permitted, 
when  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate  iu  the  name  of  all  the  people  and 
charged  with  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  in  that  he  has  violated  his  oath,  in 
that  he  has  violated  the  Constitution  of  the  country,  in  that  he  has  violated  the 
people's  laws,  and  attempted  by  his  violation  of  the  laws  to  lay  hands  upon  the 
people's  treasury ;  what  is  this  great  defensive  power  reposed  by  the  people  in 
their  representatives  -worth  if  the  President,  upon  a  mere  statement  of  his  coun- 
sel, is  permitted  to  postpone  the  further  inquiry  for  thirty  days,  until  he  prepares 
to  do — what  ?  Until  he  prepares  to  make  good  his  elaborate  statement  set  forth 
in  his  answer,  that  the  Constitution  is  but  a  cobweb  in  his  hands,  and  that  he 
defies  your  power  to  restrain  him. 

1  remember  very  well,  sir — it  suggested  itself  to  me  when  I  heard  this  discus- 
sion going  on — the  weighty  words  of  that  great  man  (Chancellor  Kent)  whose 
luminous  intellect  shed  lustre  upon  the  jurisprudence  of  his  country  iu  the  State 
of  New  York  for  more  than  a  third  of  a  century,  which  he  wrote  down  in  his 
Commentaries  upon  the  laws,  and  which  will  live  as  long  as  our  language  lives, 
that  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  the  executive  trust — 

The  Constitution  has  rendered  the  President  directly  amenable,  by  law,  for  maladministra- 
tion. The  inviolability  of  any  otticer  of  i^overnment  is  incompatible  with  the  republican 
llipory,  as  well  as  with  the  principles  of  reiributive  justice.         *  »  *  * 

If,  then,  neither  the  sense  of  duty,  the  force  of  public  opinion,  nor  the  transitory  nature 
of  the  seat  are  sufficient  to  secnre  a  faithful  discharge  of  tbe.executive  trust,  but  the  President 
will  use  the  authority  of  his  station  to  violate  the  Constitution  or  law  of  the  land,  the  House 
of  Kepresentatives  can  arrest  hiui  iu  his  career  by  resorting  to  the  power  of  impeachment. — 
1  Kent,  p.  313,  sec.  *2-59. 

Faithful  to  the  duty  imposed  upon  us  by  our  oaths  as  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  we  have  interposed  that  remedy  to  arrest  this  mtn,  and  he  comes 
to-day  to  answer,  saying  :  "  I  defy  your  impeachment  ;  by  the  executive  power 
reposed  in  me  under  the  Constitution" — and  I  believe  1  quote  almost  the  words 


80  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

of  tlie  answer  laid  before  us — "by  the  executive  power  reposed  in  ine  by  the 
Const  tution  I  claim  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate,  I  claim  in  the  presence  of 
the  country,  the  power,  witiiout  clialleuge,  let,  or  hindrance,  to  suspend  every 
executiv(i  ofHcer  of  this  government  at  my  pk'asure  "  I  venture  to  say  before 
th(;  enligliteni'd  bar  of  public  opinion  in  Amt-iica,  by  these  words  incorporated 
in  his  answer,  the  President  is  as  guilty  of  malfeasince  and  mi-!dem'!anor  in 
oflice  as  ever  man  was  guilty  of  malfi;  isance  or  misdemeanor  in  office  since  na- 
tions began  to  be  upon  the  earth.  What !  That  he  will  suspend  all  executive 
officers  of  t  lis  government  at  his  pleasure,  nor  by  force  of  the  tenure-of-office 
act,  to  which  he  himself  refers,  and  which  he  says  is  void  and  of  no  effect,  but 
by  force  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ;  and  that,  too,  he  adds,  while 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  in  session  !  AVhat  does  he  mean  by  it  ?  Let 
the  Senate  answer  when  they  come  to  vote  on  this  prgposition  for  the  extension 
of  time.  Does  he  mean  by  it  that  he  will  vacate  the  executive  offices  and  not 
fill  them  1  Does  he  mean  by  it  that  your  money  appropriated  by  your  laws  for 
carrying  on  and  administering  the  government  shall  remain  locked  in  the  vaults 
of  your  treasury,  and  shall  not  be  applied  as  your  law  directs?  Or  does  he 
mean  by  it  that  he  will  repeat  what  he  has  already  done  in  the  presence  of  the 
Senate,  and  in  violation  of  the  laws,  that  he  will  remove  without  the  consent  of 
the  Senate,  and  he  will  appoint  while  the  Senate  is  in  session  without  its  advice 
or  consent,  just  such  persons  as  will  answer  his  own  purposes  ?  Is  that  what 
he  means  ?  If  he  does  it  is  a  very  easy  method  of  repealing  the  Couslitutiou 
of  the  United  States. 

The  appoiniing  power  is  "  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate." 
The  power  to  fill  vacancies  under  the  Constitution  is  in  the  President  only  as 
to  such  vacancies  as  may  happen  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  and  so  the 
Constitution  reads.  But,  acconiing  to  the  logic  set  out  in  this  elaborate  answer, 
to  support  which  the  President  wishes  thirty  days  of  tim-  for  preparation,  he  is 
to  vacate  every  executive  office  of  the  United  States  at  his  own  pleasure,  in  the 
presence  of  the  Senate,  without  its  consent  while  they  are  in  session,  and  fill  it 
at  his  pleasure  ad  interim  even  while  they  are  trying  him.  If  this  be  permitted, 
and  if  his  successors  should  fi)llow  his  bad  example,  I  ask  the  Senate  to  delib- 
erate, to  consider  whether  the  time  would  not  soon  come,  if  that  example  were 
persisted  in  and  followed,  that  not  a  single  executive  office  in  America  would  be 
filled  by  any  man  "  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  ; "  but, 
on  the  contrary,  every  such  office  would  be  filled  without  the  advice  or  consent 
of  tlie  Senate. 

1  admit,  sir,  it  is  a  time-honored  rule  of  the  common  law,  the  growth  of  cen- 
turies, the  gathered  wisdom  of  a  thousand  years,  that  the  accused  has  tlie  right 
to  a  speedy  and  impartial  trial.  1  claim  that  the  people  also  have  a  right  to  a 
speedy  and  impai'tial  trial,  and  that  the  question  pending  here  touches  lu  some 
sort  the  right  of  the  people.  In  their  name  we  demand  here  a  speedy  and 
impartial  trial.  If  the  President  is  not  guilty,  we  ask  in  behalf  of  the  country 
that  he  shall  be  declared  not  guilty  of  the  offences  with  which  he  stands  ciiarged. 
If  it  be  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  that  he  has  power  thus  to  lay  hands  upon 
the  Constitution  of  the  country  and  rend  it  in  taiters  in  the  presence  of  its  cus- 
todians, th(;  sooner  that  the  judgment  is  pronounced  the  better. 

In  every  view  of  this  case,  in  the  light  of  the  answer  to  which  we  have 
listened,  1  f 'el  myself  justified  in  saying  that  t\u-,  public  interests  demand  that 
this  trial  shall  proceed  until,  upon  the  solemn  oath  of  the  accused  made  at  this 
bar,  it  shall  appear  that  he  caiuH)t  proceed  on  account  of  tin;  absence  of  wit- 
nesses material  to  him,  nor  until  he  slates  what  he  exjxcts  to  prove  l)y  them; 
because  I  venture  to  say  that  he  can  make  no  showing  of  that  sort  which  we 
are  not  ready  upon  the  spot  to  meet  bysaying  we  will  admit  that  the  witnesses 
will  swear  to  his  statement,  and  let  him  have  the  benefit  of  it.  Nearly  all  the 
testimony  involved  in  this  issue  is  documentary.    Much  of  it  is  official.  Enough 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  81 

of  it,  I  miglit  say,  is  official  in  ita  character  to  justify  the  trial  to  proceed  with- 
out farther  inquiry  into  the  facts. 

But  be  that  as  it  may,  although  they  did  not  request  us  to  do  so,  although 
they  had  no  right  to  demand  it  of  us,  we  have  taken  pains  to  notify  the  counsel 
for  the  accused  of  the  witnesses  that  we  propose  to  call,  the  witiKiSses  we  have 
subpoenaed,  so  that  they  might  prepare  to  meet  them;  and  it  will  occur  to  the 
8('uate  as  this  trial  proi^'resses  that  they  have  as  much  time  for  preparation  by 
the  end  of  that  day  when  the  case  on  the  part  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  closed  as  we  have.  We  make  no  boast  of  any  superior  pre- 
jiaration  in  this  matter.  We  desire  simply  to  discharge  our  duty  as  best  we 
can.  We  assume  no  superiority  to  the  counsel,  as  was  intimatful  l)y  the  gentle- 
Tnan  who  last  spoke,  (Mr.  Stanbery,)  but  we  desire  simply  to  discharge  our  duty 
here,  and  to  discharge  it  promptly,  and  to  discharge  it  faitlifiilly,  and  we  appeal 
to  the  Senate  to  grant  us  the  opportunity  of  doing  so,  so  that  justice  may  be 
done  between  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  the  President,  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  which  he  has  violated,  may  be  vindicated,  and 
that  the  wrongs  which  he  has  committed  against  an  outraged  and  betrayed 
people  may  be  redressed. 

Mr.  Henderson.  Mr,  President,  I  propose  an  order,  which  I  send  to  the 
ch.air. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order. 

Thp  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

Orihrcd,  That  the  application  of  the  counsel  for  the  Presiilent  to  be  allowed  thirty  days  to 
prepare  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  be  postponed  until  after  replication  tiled. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  call  the  attention  of 
yourself  and  the  Senate  to  the  positicm  in  which  that  would  place  the  managers, 
and  I  beg  to  express  the  desire  on  the  part  of  the  managers  that  this  question 
of  time  shall  be  settled  now.  If  a  replication  is  needed  at  all,  I  think  I  can 
say  for  my  associates  that  it  will  be  the  common  and  formal  replication,  the  sic 
similiter  of  the  profession,  the  simple  jiuning  issixe  upon  this  answer,  and  there- 
fore for  this  purpose  it  may  be  considered  as  tiled. 

We  shall  have  to  be  ready  at  all  hazards  lo-morrow  to  go  on  with  this  case 
with  the  uncertainty  of  having  the  court — I  beg  pardon  for  the  word  '*  court," 
the  Senate — give  thirty  or  more  days'  time  in  wiiich  the  counsel  for  the  accu.-ied 
may  be  prepared.  In  other  words,  we  shall  be  obliged,  under  the  high  sense  of 
duty  which  is  pressing  upon  us,  to  get  ready  by  day  or  by  night,  as  the  case 
may  be,  with  entire  uncertainty  as  to  whether  the  Senate  may  or  may  not  grant 
lurther  time.  I  think  I  can  say  that  upon  this  question  we  agree  with  the 
counsel  for  the  defence,  that  it  is  better  for  all  that  it  be  settled  now.  I  know 
1  speak  for  the  managers.  I  speak  for  the  House  of  Representatives  when  I 
say  it  is  better  to  have  this  point  settled  now.  Our  subpoenas  are  out ;  our 
witnesses  are  being  summoned ;  we  want  to  know  when  to  bring  them  hei-e  ; 
tix  a  day  ;  tell  us  when  we  can  come  here  certain,  and  we  will  be  here.  That 
is  all  we  desire,  sir,  and  therefore  I  trust  gentlemen  will  fix  at  this  time  the  hour 
and  the  day  when  this  trial  shall  certainly  proceed,  the  act  of  Providence  only 
preventing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  on  the  order  moved  by  the  senator  from 
Missouri,  (^Mr.  Henderson.) 

Mr.  Trumbull.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  25,  nays 
28  ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas— Messrs.  Anthony,  Buckalew,  Cattell,  Cole,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Fessen- 
den,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of 
Maine,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Trumbull,  Van 
Winkle  and  Vickers. — 25. 

NaYvS— Messrs.  Bayard,  Cameron,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Davis, 

6  I  P 


82  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

Drake,  Ferry.  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morpau,  >rorrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Xye,  Patter- 
son of  New  HampsJiire,  Pomcroy,  Eamsey,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Willey,  Wil- 
liams, Wilson  and  Yates. — 28.  • 
Not  voTiNt; — Mr.  Wade. — 1. 

8o  the  order  proposed  by  Mr.  Henderson  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  How.Mii).  Mr.  President,  I  now  move  that  the  motion  of  the  counsel  for 
the  accused  do  lie  on  the  table. 

JMr.  Dkakk.  Mr.  President,  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order. 

'^I'he  CiiiKF  JusTK  E.  The  senator  will  state  his  question  of  order. 

Mr.  Drakk.  That  no  motion  to  lay  a  proposition  by  the  counsel  for  the  de- 
fence, or  one  made  by  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution,  upon  the 
table,  can,  under  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  be  entertained,  but  that  the  Senate 
must  come  to  a  direct  vote  upon  the  proposition. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion  that  the  point  of  order  is  well 
taken,  and  that  the  motion  of  the  senator  from  Michigan,  that  the  proposition  of 
the  counsel  for  the  accused  lie  on  the  table,  is  not  iu  order. 

Several  Senators.  Question,  question. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  what  is  the  question? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  the  counsel  for  the 
accused,  to  be  allowed  thirty  days  for  preparation. 

Mr.  Drake.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  12,  nays 
41 ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs. Bayard,  Bnckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle, Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery, 
Norton,  Patterson  ot  Tennessee,  Saulsbury,  and  Vickers— 12. 

Nay;* — Messrs.  Anthony,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling',  Conness,  Corbett, 
Cragin,  Drake,  Ednumds,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Hen- 
derson, Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Pat- 
terson of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Sherman,  Spragjne,  Stewart,  Sumner, 
Thayer,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Willey,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 4J. 

Not  VOTING — Mr.  Wade — 1. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  twelve  and  the  nays 
forty-one.     So  the  application  for  thirty  days  for  preparation  is  denied. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  for  this  purpose  adjourn  until 
to-morrow  at  one  o'clock. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  President — 

Mr.  Sherman.  Certainly.     I  withdraw  the  motion. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators,  move,  in  bclialf  of  the 
President  and  in  the  name  of  his  counsel,  that  he  be  allowed  (upon  the  applica- 
tion which  we  have  made  and  in  which  we  have  named  thiriy  days  as  a  reason- 
able time)  a  reasonable  time  after  the  replication  shall  have  been  hied,  to  be  now 
fixed  by  the  Senate  in  their  judgment. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  time  is  that  1 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Such  time  as  the  Senate  shall  fix. 

The  Chief  Justice.     The  counsel  will  reduce  his  motion  to  writing. 

Mr.  Evarts.  I  will  state  it.  I  move  that  on  the  application  we  have  made, 
in  which  we  have  named  thirty  days  as  a  reasonable  time,  there  now  be  allowed 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  his  counsel  such  reasonable  time  for 
trial,  after  the  replication  shall  have  been  filed,  as  shall  now  be  fixed  by  the 
Senate. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  reduce  his  motion  to  writing.  Does 
the  senator  from  Ohio  withdraw  his  motion  to  adjourn  ? 

Mr.  Sherman.  Yes,  sir;  but  after  tin;  motion  is  reduced  to  writing  I  will 
renew  it. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  is  the  motion  proposed  to  be  submitted  by 
one  of  the  counsel  for  the  President  of  the  United  States  before  the  Senate 
BOW  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  83 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  not  before  the  Senate  until  it  has  been  reduced 
to  writing. 

]Mr.  Johnson.  I  thought  it  had  been  so  reduced. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  now. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  clerk  will  report  the  order. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

The  counsel  for  the  President  now  move  that  there  be  allowed  for  the  preparation  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  for  the  trial,  after  the  replication  shall  be  tiled  aud  l)efore  the 
trial  shall  be  required  to  proceed,  such  reasonable  time  as  shall  now  be  iixed  by  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  is  it  in  order  to  amend  that  motion  1 

Several  Senators.    No,  no. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  in  order  to  propose  a  substitute  for  it;  not  to 
amend  it. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  move,  then,  Mr.  President,  that  ten  days  be  allowed  after 
filing  the  I'eplication. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  as  a  Court  of  Impeacliment 
adjourn  until  one  o'clock  to-morrow. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ;  and  the  Chief  Justice  declared  the  Senate  sitting 
for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  of  A.udrew  Johnson  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
at  one  o'clock. 


Tuesday,  March  24,  18o8. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at  one 
o'clock  p.  m.,  escorted  by  Mr.  Ponieroy,  chairman  of  the  committee  heretnfore 
appointed  for  the  purpose,  took  the  chair,  and  directed  the  Sergeant-at-arms  to 
oj)en  the  court  by  proclamation. 

The  Sergfant-at  ARMS.  Hear  ye!  hear  ye  !  All  persons  are  commanded 
to  keep  silence  while  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  sitting  for  the  trial  of 
the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  by  the  House  of  Representatives  against 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  minutes. 

The  Secretary  commenced  to  read  the  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings. 

Mr.  .Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  submit  to  the  Chair  whether  it  is  not 
advisable  to  postpone  the  reading  of  the  journal  until  the  managers  and  the 
counsel  for  the  accused  are  present. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Sergeant -at-arms  informs  the  Chief  Justice  that 
the  managers  are  ready ;  and  he  has  directed  the  Secretary  to  suspend  the  read- 
ing of  the  minutes. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent,  Messrs.  Stanbery,  Curtis,  Evarts,  Nelson,  and 
Groesbeck  entered  the  chamber  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

At  five  minutes  past  one  o'clock  the  presence  of  the  managers  on  the  part  of 
the  Hou.-^e  of  Representatives  was  announced  at  the  door  of  the  Senate  chaiu- 
ber  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  managers  will  please  to  take  their  Beats  within 
the  bar. 

The  managers  were  conducted  to  the  seats  provided  for  them. 

The  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  appealed  at  the  door,  headed 
by  ]Mr.  E.  B.  Washburne,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  and 
accompanied  by  the  Speaker  and  Clerk. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  now  read  the  minutes. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  Monday,  March  23,  of 
the  Senate  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  by  the 


84  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

HouHP  of  Representatives  against  Androw  Jolinson,  President  of  the  United 
States. 

The  Chief  Justicr.  The  Chair  will  lay  before  the  Senate  a  resolution  which 
has  been  recoived  from  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

In  the  House  of  Representatives, 

March  24,  1868. 
Resolved,  That  a  mossafre  be  sent  to  the  Senate  by  the  Clerk  of  the  House,  informing  the 
Senate  that  the  House  of  Representatives  has  adopted  a  replication  to  tlie  answer  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  to  the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  ap^ainst  him,  and  that  the 
same  will  be  presented  to  the  Senate  by  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House. 
Attest:  EDWARD  McPHERSON, 

Clerk  of  the  House  vf  Representatives. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Senate  will  receive  the  replication  of  the  managers. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwkll  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  am  charged  by  the 
managers  with  presenting  the  replication  which  has  been  adopted  by  the  House 
of  Representatives  : 

In  thr  House  of  Representatives,  United  States, 

Mof-ch  24,  1868. 
Repla-afion  hy  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  to  the  answer 
of  Andrew  Johnso7i,  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment exhibited  against  him  hy  the  House  of  Representatives. 
The  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  have  considered  the  seve- 
ral answers  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  several 
articles  of  impeachment  against  him  by  them  exhibited  in  the  name  of  themselves 
and  of  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  reserving  to  themselves  all  ad- 
vantage of  exception  to  the  insufficiency  of  his  answer  to  each  and  all  of  the 
several  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  against  said  Andrew  Johnson,  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  do  deny  each  and  every  averment  in  said  several 
answers,  or  either  of  them,  which  denies  or  traverses  the  acts,  intents,  crimes,  or 
misdemeanors  charged  against  said  Andrew  Johnson  in  the  said  articles  of  im- 
peachment, or  either  of  them;  and  for  replication  to  said  answer  do  say  that 
said  Andrew  .Johnson,  Pi-esident  of  the  United  States,  is  guilty  of  the  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors  mentioned  in  said  articles,  and  that  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives are  ready  to  prove  the  same. 

SCHUYLER  COLFAX, 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Rep)resentatives. 
Edward  McPherson, 

Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  replication  will  be  received  by  the  Secretary  and 
filed. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  move  that  an  authenticated  copy  of  the 
replication  be  furnished  to  the  counsel  of  the  President. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  CiilKF  Justice.  When  the  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment 
adjourned  yesterday  evening,  a  motinn  was  pending  on  the  part  of  the  counsel 
for  the  President  that  such  lime  should  be  allowed  for  preparation  as  the  Senate 
might  please  to  determine,  and  thereupon  the  senator  from  Maryland  [Mr.  Jobu- 
sonj  submitted  an  order  which  will  be  read  by  the  Secretary. 

The  SccHitary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  Tiiat  tlie  Senate  jjrocccd  to  the  trial  of  the  President  under  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment exhibited  against  him  at  the  expiration  of  ten  days  from  this  day,  unless  for  causes 
Bhowu  to  the  contrary. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  on  agreeing  to  the  ordei*. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  85 

Mr.  Sumner.  IMr.  Presiilont,  I  semi  to  tlie  Chair  an  amendment,  to  come  in 
immodiately  after  the  word  "Ordered,"  being  in  the  nature  of  a  substitute. 

The  CliiKF  JrSTU'F.  The  senator  from  Massachusetts  moves  to  strike  out 
all  after  the  word  "  Ordered,"  and  to  substitute  what  will  be  read  by  the 
Secretary. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Now  that  replication  lias  been  filed,  the  Senate,  adlievhig;  to  its  rule  already  adopted,  wiU 
proceed  with  the  trial  from  day  to  day  (Sundays  excepted)  uuless  otherwise  ordered  on  reason 
shown. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  on  the  amendment  by  way  of  substitute. 

Mr.  EdiMUiXDS.  Mr,  President,  I  move  that  the  Senate  retire  to  consider  the 
pending;  question. 

Mr.  Sumner  and  others.  No;  no. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  moved  by  the  senator  from  Vermont  that  the 
Senate  retire  to  consider  the  question  arising  upon  the  order  moved  by  the 
senator  from  Maryland  and  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  senator  from  Massa- 
chusetts.    [Having  put  the  question.]     The  ayes  appear  to  have  it. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG  and  Mr.  Sumner  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were 
ordered  ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  29,  nays  23  ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas— Messrs.  Authouy,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolictle,  Edmunds, 
Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,'  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Howe,  Johuson,  Mc- 
Creery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrrill  of  Vermont,  Mortou,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, Patterson  of  Tenuesese,  Saulsbury,  Sprague,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  WiUey,  and 
Williams— 29. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  C(nniess,  Cragin,  Drake, 
Feny,  Harlan,  Howard,  Morgan,  Nye,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Sum- 
ner, Thayer,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  and  Wilson — 23. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Wade  and  Yates. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  29  and  the  nays  are  23. 
So  the  motion  is  agreed  to,  and  the  Senate  will  retire  for  consultation. 

The' Senate  accordingly,  at  tw(!nty-five  minutes  past  one  o'clock,  retired,  with 
the  Chief  Justice,  to  the  reception  room  for  consultation. 

The  Senate  having  retired  to  the  reception  room. 

The  Chief  Justice  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  amendment  proposed 
by  Mr.  Sumner  to  the  order  submitted  by  Mr.  Johnson. 

Mr.  Johnson  modified  the  order  submitted  by  him  so  as  to  read  : 

Ordered,  That  the  Senate  will  commence  the  trial  of  the  President  upon  the  articles  of  im- 
peachment exhibited  against  him  on  Thursday,  the  2d  of  April. 

Mr.  Williams  submitted  the  following  order: 

Ordered,  That  the  further  consideration  of  the  respondent's  application  for  time  be  post- 
poned until  the  managers  have  opened  their  case  and  submitted  their  evidence. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG  moved  to  amend  the  order  proposed  by  Mr.  Johnson,  by 
striking  out  "  Thursday,  the  2d  of  April,"  and  inserting  "  Monday,  the  30th  of 
March  instant." 

Mr.  Sumner  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  this  amendment,  and  they  were 
ordered;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  28,  nays  26,  as  follows  : 

Yeas— Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Cragin,  Drake, 
Ferry,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye, 
Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton, 
Willey,  WiUiams,  and  Wilson — 26. 

Nays— Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Edmunds, 
Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Jdhnson,  McCreerj% 
Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle, 
and  Vickers — 24.  . 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Wade  and  Yates — 2. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice  stated  the  next  question  to  be  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
order  proposed  by  Mr  Williams. 


86  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  "Williams  called  for  die  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered;  and 
being  taken,  resulted — yeas  9,  nays  42,  as  follows  : 

Yi;as — Mot^.srs.  Aiitl)on3',  Chaudlcr,  Dixon,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Howard,  ^lorgan,  Patterson 
of  Teuni'ssce,  and  Williams — 9 

Navs — Messrs.  Bayard.  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Cattejl,  Cole,  Conklinpf,  Conness,  Cragin, 
Davis,. Doolittle,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Freliiig^huyscn,  licndi-rsnii, 
Heiuirii'ks,  Howe,  JoIiiksdu,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Mcjrton,  Nor- 
ton, Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Ponieroy,  Ramsey,  Koss,  Saulsbury,  !Sliernian, 
t^praoiie,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  and 
Wilson- 4-2. 

Not  votiN(;— Messrs.  Corbett,  Wade,  and  Yates — 3. 

So  the  order  proposed  by  Mr.  Williams  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  question  recurring  on  the  amendment  proposed  in  the  Senate  chamber  by 
Mr.  Sumner  to  the  order  submitted  by  Mr.  Johnson, 

Mr.  Sumnp:r  Avithdrew  his  amendment. 

The  Chikf  Justice  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  order  proposed  by  Mr. 
Johnson,  as  amended,  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  the  Senate  will  commence  the  trial  of  the  President  upon  the  articles  of 
impeachment  exhibited  against  him,  on  Monday,  the  30th  day  of  March  instant. 

Mr.  Hk.\dricks  moved  to  amend  the  order  by  adding  thereto  the  words, 
'•  and  proceed  therein  with  all  convenient  despatch,  under  the  rules  of  the  Sen- 
ate sitting  upon  the  trial  of  an  impeachment." 

The  amendment  was  adopted  ;  and  the  order,  as  amended,  was  agreed  to. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  iMorto.v,  the  Smiate  agreed  to  return  to  the  Senate  chamber. 

The  Senate  returned  to  the  chamber,  and  the  Chief  Justice  resumed  the  chair 
at  twenty-thrre  minutes  past  three  o'clock  p.  m. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  is  directed  to  inform  the  counsel  for 
the  respondent  that  the  Senate  has  agreed  upon  an  order  in  response  to  their 
application,  which  will  now  be  read. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  the  Senate  Avill  commence  the  trial  of  the  President  upon  the  articles  of 
imiicachnieiit  exhibited  against  him,  on  Monday,  the  3()th  of  March  instant,  and  proceed 
therein  with  all  convenient  despatch,  under  the  rules  of  the  Senate  sitting  upon  the  trial  of 
an  impeachment. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Have  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  anything 
further  to  propose  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham    Mr.  President,  we  have  nothing  further  to  propose. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Have  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  anything  to  pro- 
pose ] 

[No  response.] 

Mr.  Manager  Bu'i'LER.  "Will  the  President  allow  me  to  give  notice  to  the  wit- 
nesses on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  who  are  in  attendauce,  that 
they  must  appear  hen^  at  one  o'clock  on  Monday,  the  30lli  ? 

Mr.  Edmunds.  Half-past  twelve  o'clock.  The  rules  provide  for  half-past 
twelve. 

Mr  Manager  Butler.  Half-past  twelve  o'clock  on  Monday,  the  SOth. 

Mr.  Wilson.  1  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  for  the  trial  of  this  im])eachment 
adjourn  until  Moiulay  next  at  half-past  twelve  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  iin})eachment  stands 
adjourned  until  liall-jiast  twelve  o'clock  on  iMonday  next,  tlu;  oUth  instant. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  87 


Monday,  March  30,  1868. 

At  half-past  twelve  o'clock  p.  rn.  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  State? 
entered  the  Senate  chamber,  escorted  by  Mr.  Pouieroy,  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee heretofore  appointed  for  that  purpose. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  open  the  court  by  procla- 
mation. 

The  Sergkant-at-Arms.  Hear  ye!  hear  ye!  hear  ye!  All  persons  are 
commanded  to  keep  silence  while  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  sitting  for 
the  trial  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  by  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  President's  counsel,  Messrs.  Stanbery,  Curtis, '  Evarts,  Nelson,  and 
Groesbeck,  entered  the  chamber  and  took  the  seats  assigned  to  them. 

At  twelve  o'clock  and  thirty-five  minutes  p.  m.  the  Sergeant-at-arms  an- 
nounced the  presence  of  the  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  they  were  conducted  to  the  seats  assigned  to 
them. 

Immediately  afterward  the  presence  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives was  announced,  and  the  members  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House,  headed  by  Mr.  E.  B.  Washburne,  of  Illinois,  the  cliairman  of  that  com- 
mittee, and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker  and  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, entered  the  Senate  chamber  and  took  the  seats  prepared  for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  minutes  of  the  last  day's  proceedings  will  now  be 
read  by  the  Secretary. 

The  Secretary  read  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  sitting  on  Tuesday,  March 
24.  1868,  for  the  trial  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  managers  of  the  House  of  Rej)re3entative3, 
you  will  now  proceed  in  support  of  the  articles  of  impeachment.  Senators  will 
please  give  their  attention. 

OPENING   ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  BUTLERf  OF   MASSACHUSETTS,  ONE  OF  THE   MANAGERS 
ON  THE  IMPEACHMENT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  President  and  Gentle7nen  of  the  Senate: 

The  onerous  duty  has  fallen  to  my  fortune  to  present  to  you,  imperfectly  as 
I  must,  the  several  propositions  of  fact  and  law  upon  which  the  House  of 
Representatives  will  endeavor  to  sustain  the  cause  of  the  people  against  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  now  pending  at  your  bar. 

The  high  station  of  the  accused,  the  novelty  of  the  proceeding,  the  gravity  of 
the  business,  the  importance  of  the  questions  to  be  presented  to  your  adjudica- 
tion, the  possible  momentous  result  of  the  issues,  each  and  all  must  plead  for 
me  to  claim  your  attention  for  as  long  a  time  as  your  patience  may  endure. 

Now,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world,  has  a  nation  brought 
before  its  highest  tribunal  its  chief  executive  magistrate  for  trial  and  possible 
deposition  from  office,  upon  charges  of  maladministration  of  the  powers  and 
duties  of  that  office.  In  other  times,  and  in  other  lands,  it  has  been  found  that 
despotisms  could  only  be  tempered  by  assassination,  and  nations  living  luider 
constitutional  governments  even,  have  found  no  mode  by  which  to  rid  themselves 
of  a  tyrannical,  imbecile,  or  faithless  ruler,  save  by  overturning  the  very  foun- 
dation and  frame-work  of  the  government  itself.  And,  but  recently,  in  one  of 
the  most  civilized  and  powerful  governments  of  the  world,  from  which  our  own 
institutions  have  been  largely  modeled,  we  have  seen  a  nation  submit  for  years 
to  the  rule  of  an  insane  king,  because  its  constitution  contained  no  method  for 
his  removal. 

Our  fathers,  more  wisely,  founding  our  government,  have  provided  for  such 
and  all  similar  exigencies  a  conservative,  effectual,  and  practical  remedy  by  the 
Constitutional  provision  that  the  '•  President,  Vice-President,  and  all  civil  officers 


88  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT 

of  the  United  States  shall  be  removed  from  office  on  impeachment  for  and  con- 
viction of  treason,  liribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  The  Con- 
stitution leaves  nothing  to  implication,  either  as  to  the  persons  upon  whom,  or  the 
body  by  whom,  or  the  tribunal  before  which,  or  the  offences  for  which,  or  the 
manner  in  which  this  high  power  should  be  exercised  ;  each  and  all  are  provided 
for  by  express  words  of  ini})erative  command. 

The  House  of  Representatives  shall  solely  impeach;  the  Senate  only  shnll 
try  ;  and  in  case  of  conviction  the  judgment  shall  alone  be  removal  from  office 
and  disqualification  for  office,  one  or  both.  These  mandatory  provisions 
became  necessary  to  adapt  a  well  known  procedure  of  the  mother  country  to 
the  institutions  of  the  then  infant. republic.  But  a  single  incident  only  of  the 
business  was  left  to  construction,  aiul  that  concerns  the  offences  or  incapacities 
wliich  are  the  groundwork  of  impeachment.  This  was  wisely  done,  because 
human  foresight  is  inadequate,  and  human  intelligence  fails  in  the  task  of  antici- 
patiug  and  providing  for,  by  positive  enactment,  all  the  infinite  gradations  of 
human  wrong  and  sin,  by  which  the  liberties  of  a  people  and  the  safety  of 
a  nation  may  be  endangered  from  the  imbecility,  corruption  and  irnhallowcd 
ambition  of  its  rulers. 

It  may  not  be  uninstructive  to  observe  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
while  engaged  in  their  glorious  and,  I  trust,  ever-enduring  work,  had  their  atten- 
tion aroused  and  their  minds  quickened  most  signally  upon  this  very  topic.  In 
the  previous  year  only  Mr.  Burke,  from  his  place  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  Eng- 
land, had  preferred  charges  for  impeachment  against  Warren  Hastings,  and  three 
days  before  our  convention  sat  he  was  impeached  at  the  bar  of  the  House  of 
Lords  for  misbehavior  in  office  as  the  ruler  of  a  people  whose  numbers  were 
counted  by  millions.  The  mails  were  then  bringing, across  the  Atlantic,  week  by 
week,  the  eloquent  accusations  of  Burke,  the  gorgeous  and  burning  denunciations 
of  Sheridan,  in  behalf  of  the  oppressed  people  of  India,  against  one  who  had 
wielded  over  them  more  than  regal  power.  May  it  not  have  been,  that  the  trial  then 
in  progress  was  the  determining  cause  why  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  left 
the  description  of  offences,  because  of  which  the  conduct  of  an  officer  might  be 
inquired  of,  to  be  defined  by  the  laws  and  usages  of  Parliament  as  found  in  the 
precedents  of  the  mother  country,  with  which  our  fathers  were  as  familiar  as  we 
are  with  our  own? 

In  the  light,  therefore,  of  these  precedents,  the  question  arises.  What  are 
impeachahle  offences  under  the  provisions  of  our  Constitution  ? 

To  analyze,  to  compare,  to  reconcile  these  precedents,  is  a  work  rather  for 
the  closet  than  the  forum.  In  order,  therefore,  to  spare  your  attention.  I  have 
preferred  to  state  the  result  to  which  I  have  arrived,  and  that  you  may  see  the 
authorities  and  discussions,  both  in  this  country  and  in  England,  from  which 
we  deduce  our  pro])ositions,  so  far  as  applicable  to  this  case,  I  pray  leave  to 
lay  before  you,  at  the  close  of  my  argument,  a  brief  of  all  the  precedents  and 
authorities  uj)on  this  subject,  in  both  countries,  for  which  I  am  indebtt-d  to  the 
exhaustive  and  learned  labors  of  my  friend,  the  honorable  William  Lawrence, 
of  Ohio,  member  of  the  Judiciary  Ctimmittee  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
in  which  I  fully  concur  and  which  I  adopt. 

We  define,  therefore,  an  impeachable  high  crime  or  misdemeanor  to  be  one  in 
its  nature  or  consequences  subversive  of  some  fundainental  or  essential  principle 
of  goiernmcnt,  or  hii^hly  prejudicial  to  the  public  interest,  and  this  may  consist 
of  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  of  law,  of  an  official  oath,  or  of  dvty,  by  an 
act  committed  or  omitted,  or,  without  violating  a' positive  law,  by  the  abuse 
of  discretionary  porvers  from  iviproper  motives,  or  for  any  improper  purpose. 

The  first  criticism  which  will  strike  the  mind  on  a  cursory  examination  of  this 
definition  is,  that  some  of  the  enumerated  acts  are  not  within  the  common-law 
definition  of  crimes.  It  is  but  common  learning  that  in  the  English  precedents 
the  words  "  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  "  arc  universally  used ;  but  any  mal- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  89 

versatioii  in  ofTice,  liiglily  projudicial  to  tlie  pnlilic  interest,  or  subversive  of  some 
fundamental  principle  of  government  by  which  the  safety  of  a  people  may  be 
hi  clanger,  is  a  high  crime  against  the  nation,  as  the  term  is  used  in  parliamen- 
tary law. 

iiallam,  in  his  Constitutional  History  of  England,  certainly  deduces  this  doctrine 
from  the  precedents,  and  especially  Lord  Danby  case,  11  State  Trials,  600,  of 
which  he  says : 

The  Commons,  in  impeacliiiig  Lord  Danby,  wont  a  p^roat  way  towanls  establishing:^  the 
principle  that  uo  minister  can  shelter  himself  behind  the  throne  by  pleadiuiJ:  obedience  to  the 
orders  of  his  sovereifrn.  He  is  answerable  for  the  justice,  the  honesty,  the  utility  oj  all  meas- 
ures emanatiHg  from  the  Crown,  as  well  as  for  their  leuality  ;  and  thus  the  executive  adaiiu- 
istratiou  is,  of  ought  to  be,  subordinate  in  all  great  matters  of  policy  to  the  superintendence 
and  virtual  control  of  the  two  houses  of  Parliament. 

Mr.  Christian,  in  his  notes  to  the  Commentaries  of  Blackstone,  explains  the 
collocation  and  use  of  the  words  "  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors"  by  saying : 

When  the  words  "high  crimes  and  misdemeanors"  are  used  in  prosecutions  by  impeach- 
ment, the  words  "high  crimes"  have  uo  definite  siguificatiou,  but  are  used  merely  to  give 
greater  solemnity  to  the  charge. 

A  like  interpretation  must  have  been  given  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
because  a  hke  definition  to  ours  was  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Madison,  to  whom  more 
than  to  any  other  we  are  indebted  for  the  phraseology  of  our  Constitution,  for, 
in  the  first  Congress,  when  discussing  the  power  to  remove  an  officer  by  the 
President,  which  is  one  of  the  very  material  questions  before  the  Senate  at  this 
moment,  he  uses  the  following  words : 

The  danger  consists  mainly  in  this  :  that  the  President  can  displace  from  office  a  man 
whose  merits  require  he  should  be  continued  in  it.  In  the  first  place,  he  will  be  impeach- 
able by  the  House  for  such  an  act  of  maladministration,  for  I  contend  that  the  vvauton 
removal  of  meritorious  otHcers  would  subject  him  to  impeachment  and  removal  from  his  own 
high  ti'ust. 

Strengthening  this  view,  we  find  that  within  ten  years  afterwards  impeach- 
ment was  applied  by  the  very  men  who  framed  the  Constitution  to  the  acts  of 
public  officers,  which  under  no  common-law  definition  could  be  justly  called 
crimes  or  misdemeanors,  either  high  or  low.  Leaving,  however,  the  correctness 
of  our  proposition  to  be  sustained  by  the  authorities  we  furnish,  we  are  nat- 
urally brought  to  the  consideration  of  the  method  of  the  procedure,  and  the 
nature  of  the  proceedings  in  cases  of  impeachment,  and  the  character  and  powers 
of  the  tribunal  by  which  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  are  to  be  adjudged  or 
determined. 

One  of  the  important  questions  which  meets  us  at  the  outset  is:  Is  this  pro- 
ceeding a  trial,  as  that  term  is  understood,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  rights  and 
duties  of  a  court  and  jury  u[)ou  an  indictment  for  crime?  Is  it  not  rather  more 
in  the  nature  of  an  inquest  of  ofiice  1 

The  Constitution  seems  to  have  determined  it  to  be  the  latter,  because,  under 
its  provisions  the  right  to  retain  and  hold  office  is  the  only  subject  that  can  be 
fiiuilly  adjudicated;  all  preliminary  inquiry  being  carried  on  solely  to  determine 
that  question  and  that  alone. 

All  investigaiions  of  f  ict  are  in  some  sense  trials,  but  not  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  word  is  used  by  courts. 

Again,  as  a  correlative  question  : 

Is  this  body,  now  sitting  to  determine  the  accusation  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives against  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  or  a  Court  ? 

I  trust,  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  may  be  pardoned  for  making  some 
suggestions  upon  these  topics,  because  to  us  it  seems  these  are  questions  not  of 
forms,  but  of  substance.  If  this  body  here  is  a  Court  in  any  manner  as  contra- 
distinguished from  the  Senate,  then  we  agree  that  many  if  not  all  the  analogies 
of  the  procedures  of  courts  must  obtain;  that  the  common-law  incidents  of  a 
trial  in  court  must  have  place;  that  you  may  be  bound  in  your  pruceediugs  and 


90  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

acljnflication  liv  tlio  rules  anrl  prec^flonts  of  the  common  or  statute  law  ;  that 
the  interest,  bias,  or  preconceived  opinions  or  affinities  to  the  party,  of  the  judges, 
may  be  open  to  in  juiry,  and  even  tlie  rules  of  order  and  precedents  in  courts 
should  have  effect  ;  that  the  managers  of  the  House  of  Representatives  must 
conform  to  those  rules  as  they  v?^ouId  be  applicibli'  to  public  or  private  prosecu- 
tors of  crime  in  coints,  and  that  the  accused  may  claim  the  benefit  of  the  rule  in 
criminal  cases,  that  he  may  only  be  convicted  when  the  evidence  makes  the  fttct 
clear  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  instead  of  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence. 

We  claim  and  respectfully  insist  that  this  Tribunal  has  none  of  the  attributes 
of  a  judicial  Court  as  they  are  commonly  received  and  understood.  Of  course, 
this  question  must  be  largely  determined  by  the  express  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  in  it  there  is  no  word,  as  is  well  known  to  you.  Senators,  which 
gives  the  slightest  coloring  to  the  idea  that  this  is  a  Court,  save  that  in  the  trial 
of  this  particular  respondent  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  must  pre- 
side. But  even  this  provision  can  have  no  determining  effect  upon  the  question, 
because,  is  not  this  the  same  Tribunal  in  all  its  powers,  incidents,  and  duties, 
when  other  civil  officers  are  brought  to  its  bar  for  trial,  when  the  Vice-President 
(not  a  judiei.il  officer)  must  preside  1  Can  it  be  contended  for  a  moment  that 
this  is  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  when  sitting  on  the  trial  of  all  other 
officers,  and  a  Court  only  when  the  President  is  at  the  bar  ?  solely  because  in 
this  case  the  Constitution  has  designated  the  Chief  Justice  as  the  presiding 
officer  ? 

The  fact  that  Senators  are  sitting  for  this  purpose  on  oath  or  affirmation  does 
not  influence  the  argument,  because  it  is  well  understood  that  that  was  but  a 
substitute  for  the  obligation  of  honor  under  which,  by  the  theory  of  the  British 
constitution,  the  peers  of  England  were  supposed  to  sit  in  like  cases. 

A  peer  of  England  makes  answer  in  a  court  of  chancery  upon  honor,  when  a 
common  person  must  answer  upon  oath.  But  our  fathers,  sweeping  away  all 
distinctions  of  caste,  required  every  man  alike,  acting  in  a  solemn  proceeding  like 
this,  to  take  an  oath.  Our  Constitution  holds  all  good  men  alike  honorable,  and 
entitled  to  honor. 

The  idea  that  this  tribunal  was  a  Court  seems  to  have  crept  in  because  of  the 
analogy  to  similar  proceedings  in  trials  before  the  House  of  Lords. 

Analogies  have  ever  been  found  deceptive  and  illusory.  Before  such  analogy 
is  invoked  we  must  notforgetthat  the  Houses  of  Parliament  at  first,and  latterly 
the  House  of  Lords,  claimed  and  exercised  jurisdiction  over  all  crimes,  even 
where  the  punishment  extended  to  life  and  limb.  By  express  provision  of  our 
Constitution  all  such  jurisdiction  is  taken  from  the  Senate  and  "  the  judicial 
])ower  of  the  United  States  is  vested  in  one  Supreme  Court  and  such  inferior 
courts  as  from  time  to  time  Congress  may  ordain  and  establish." 

We  sufigest,  therefore,  that  we  are  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  convened  as  a  constitutional  tribunal,  to  inquire  into  and  determine 
whether  Andrew  Johnson,  because  of  malversation  in  office,  is  longer  fit  to 
retain  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  Slates,  or  hereafter  to  bold  any  office 
of  honor  or  profit. 

I  respectfully  submit  that  thus  far  your  mode  of  proceeding  has  no  analogy 
to  that  of  a  court.  You  issue  a  summons  to  give  the  respondent  notice  of  the 
case  pending  against  him.  You  do  not  sequester  his  person — you  do  not  require 
his  personal  appearance  even  ;  you  proceed  against  him  and  will  go  on  to 
determine  his  cause  in  his  absence,  and  make  the  linal  order  therein.  How  dif- 
ferent is  each  stej)  from  those  of  ordinary  criminal  procedure. 

A  constitutional  tribunal  sob  ly,  you  are  bound  by  no  law,  cither  statute  or 
common,  M'hicli  may  limit  your  constitutional  preri>gative.  You  consult  no  pre- 
cedents save  those  of  the  law  and  custom  of  pai-lianu-ntary  bodies.  You  are  a 
law  unto  yourselves,  bound  only  by  the  natural  principles  of  equity  and  jus- 
tice, and  that  sulus  iioimli  i^uprcma  est  lex. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    TRESIDENT.  91 

Upon  tliose  principles  and  piirlimentary  law  no  jnrlgos  can  aid  you,  and 
indeed  in  late  years  the  judges  of  England  in  the  trial  of  impeachment  declined 
to  speak  to  a  question  of  parliamentary  law,  even  at  the  request  of  the  House  of 
Peers,  although  they  attended  on  tliem  in  their  robes  of  oliice. 

Nearly  live  hundred  years  ago,  in  138S,  the  House  of  Lords  resolved,  in  the 
case  of  Bilknaj)  and  the  other  judges,  "That  these  matters,  when  brought  before 
them,  shall  be  discussed  and  adjudged  by  the  course  of  I'arliament,  and  not  by 
the  civil  law,  nor  by  the  common  l.nw  of  the  land  used  in  other  inferior  courts." 

And  that  resolution,  which  was  in  contravintion  of  the  opinion  of  all  the 
judges  of  England,  and  against  the  remonstrance  of  Richard  II,  remains  the 
unquestioned  law  of  England  to  this  day. 

Another  determining  quality  of  this  tribunal,  distinguishing  it  from  a  court 
and  the  analogies  of  ordinary  legal  proceedings,  and  showing  that  it  is  a  Senate 
only,  is,  that  there  can  be  no  riglit  of  challenge  by  either  party  to  any  of  its 
members  for  favor,  or  malice,  affinity,  or  interest. 

This  has  been  held  from  the  earliest  times  in  Parliament  even  when  that  was 
the  liigh  court  of  judicature  of  the  realm  sitting  to  punish  all  crimes  against  the 
peace. 

In  the  case  of  The  Duke  of  Somerset,  (1  Howell's  State  Trials,  p.  521,)  as 
early  as  1551,  it  was  held  that  the  Duke  of  Northumberland  and  the  Marquis 
of  Northampton  and  the;  Earl  of  Pembroke,  for  an  attempt  upon  whose  lives 
Somerset  was  on  trial,  should  sit  in  judgment  upon  him  against  the  objection  of 
the  accused  because  "a  peer  of  the  realm  might  not  be  challenged  " 

Again,  the  Duke  of  Northumberland,  (ibid.,  1st  State  Trials,  p.  765,)  Marquis 
of  Northampton,  and  Earl  of  Warwick,  being  on  trial  for  their  lives,  A.  D.  1553, 
before  the  Court  of  the  Lord  High  Steward  of  England,  one  of  the  prisoners 
inquired  whether  any  such  persons  as  were  equally  culpable  in  that  crime,  and 
those  by  whose  letters  and  commandments  he  was  dii'ected  in 'all  his  doings, 
might  be  his  judges,  or  pass  upon  his  trial  at  his  death.  It  was  answered  that, 
•'  If  any  were  as  deeply  to  be  touched  as  himself  in  that  case,  yet  as  long  as  no 
attainder  of  record  were  against  them,  they  were  nevertheless  persons  able  in 
the  law  to  pass  upon  any  trial,  and  not  to  be  challenged  therefor,  but  at  the 
prince's  pleasure." 

Again,  on  the  trial  of  Earls  of  Essex  and  Southampton,  (ibid.,  1  State  Trials, 
p.  1335,)  for  high  treason,  before  all  the  justices  of  England,  A.  D.  1600,  the 
Earl  of  Essex  desired  to  know  of  my  Lord  Chief  Justice  whether  he  might 
challenge  any  of  the  peers  or  no.  Whereunto  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  answered 
"  No." 

Again,  in  Lord  Audley's  case,  (ibid.,  3  State  Trials,  page  402,  A.  D.  1631,) 
it  was  questioned  wliether  a  peer  might  challenge  his  peers,  as  in  the  case  of 
common  jurats.  It  was  answered  by  all  the  judges,  after  consultation,  "  he 
might  not."  [This  case  is  of  more  value  because  it  was  an  indictment  for  being 
accessory  to  rape  upon  his  own  wife,  and  had  no  political  influence  in  it  what- 
ever.] The  same  point  was  ruled  in  the  Countess  of  Essex's  case  on  trial  for 
treason.     (Moore's  Reports,  621.) 

In  the  Earl  of  Portland's  case,  A.  D.  1701,  (ibid..  State  trials,  page  2SS,)  the 
Commons  objected  that  Lord  Sommers,  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  and  Lord  Halifax, 
■who  had  been  impeached  by  the  Commons  before  the  House  of  Lords  for  being 
concerned  in  the  same  acts  for  which  Portland  was  being  brought  to  trial,  voted 
and  acted  with  the  House  of  Lords  in  the  preliminary  proceedings  of  said  trial, 
and  were  upon  a  committee  of  conference  in  relation  thereto.  But  the  lords 
after  discussion  solemnly  resolved  "  that  no  lord  of  Parliament,  impeached  of 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  can  be  precluded  from  voting  on  any  occasion, 
except  on  his  own  trial." 

In  the  trial  of  Lord  Viscount  Melville,  A.  D.  1800, (ibid.,  29  State  Trials,  p.  1398,) 
some  observations  having  been  made  as  to  the  possible  bias  of  some  portion  of 


92  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  ])3erp,  (by  the  counsel  for  rlefendant,)  Mr.  Whitebread,  one  of  the  managers 
on  the  part  of  the  Commons,  answered  as  follows  : 

My  lords,  as  to  your  own  court,  sometliiiig  lias  been  thrown  out  about  tlie  possibility  of  a 
challenp^e.  Upon  suc-Ii  a  subject  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  say  more  than  this,  which  has 
been  admitted  :  that  an  order  was  given  by  the  House  of  Conunons  to  prosecute  Lord  Mel- 
ville in  a  court  nf  law  wlu-re  he  would  have  the  rJ^/tHo  challenge  his  jurors.  »  *  »  What 
did  the  noble  Viscount  then  do  by  the  means  of  one  of  his  friends  ?  *  *  *  From  the 
mouth  of  that  learned  gentleman  came  at  last  the  successful  motion  :  "  that  Henry,  Viscount 
of  Melville,  be  impeached  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  I  ^ull  justified,  then,  in  saying 
that  he  is  here  by  his  own  option.  *  *  *  I5i,t,  my  lords,  a  challenge  to  your  lordships  ! 
Is  not  every  individual  peer  the  guardian  of  his  own  honor? 

In  the  trial  of  Warren  Hastings  the  same  point  was  ruled,  or,  more  properly 
speaking,  taken  for  granted,  for  of  the  more  than  170  peers  who  commenced 
the  trial,  but  29  sat  and  pronounced  the  verdict  at  the  close,  and  some  of  those 
were  peers  created  since  the  trial  began,  and  had  not  heard  either  the  opening 
or  much  of  the  evidence  ;  and  during  the  trial  there  had  been  by  death,  succes- 
sion, and  creation  more  than  ISO  changes  in  the  House  of  Peers,  who  were  his 
judges. 

We  have  abundant  authority  also  on  this  point  in  our  own  country. 

In  the  case  of  Judge  Pickering-,  who  was  tried  in  March,  1804,  for  drunken- 
ness in  office,  although  undefended  in  form,  yet  he  had  all  his  rights  presei'ved. 

This  trial  being  postponed  a  session,  three  senators — Samuel  Smith,  of 
Maryland,  Israel  Smith,  of  Vermont,  and  John  Smith,  of  New  York — who  had 
all  been  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  there  voted  in  favor  of 
impeaching  Judge  Pickering,  were  senators  when  his  trial  came  off. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  New  York,  raised  the  question,  by  asking  to  be  excused  from 
voting.  Mr.  Smith,  of  Maryland,  declared  "  he  would  not  be  influenced  from  his 
duty  by  any  false  delicacy  ;  that  he,  for  his  part,  felt  no  delicacy  upon  the  sub- 
ject ;  the  vote  he  had  given  in  the  other  house  to  impeach  Judge  Pickering 
would  have  no  "infliietice  upon  him  in  the  court ;  his  constituents  had  a  right  to 
his  vote,  and  he  would  not  by  any  act  of  his  deprive,  or  consent  to  deprive, 
them  of  that  right,  but  would  claim  and  exercise  it  upon  this  as  upon  every 
other  question  that  might  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  whilst  he  had  the  honor  of 
a  seat." 

A  vote  being  had  upon  the  question,  it  was  determined  that  these  gentlemen 
should  sit  and  vote  on  the  trial.  This  passed  in  the  affirmative  by  a  vote  of 
19  to  7,  and  all  the  gentlemen  sat  and  voted  on  every  question  during  the 
trial. 

On  the  trial  of  Samuel  Chase  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  no 
challenge  was  attempted,  although  the  case  was  decided  by  an  almost  strict  party 
vote  in  high  party  tim(!S,  and  doubtless  many  of  the  senators  had  formed  and 
expressed  oj)inions  upon  his  conduct. 

That  arbitrary  judge;,  but  learned  lawyer,  knew  too  much  to  attempt  any  such 
futile  movement  as  a  challenge  to  a  senator.  Certain  it  is  that  the,  proprieties 
of  the  occasion  were  not  marred  by  tlie  worse  than  anomalous  proeeiuling  of  the 
challenge  of  one  senator  to  another,  especially  before  the  defendant  h.id  appeared 

Nor  did  the  Manngers  exercise  the  right  of  challenge,  although  Senators  Smith 
and  Mitchell,  of  New  York,  were  members  of  the  Senate  on  the  trial  and  voted 
nof  gui/fi/  on  ev(i\y  article,  who  had  been  members  of  the  House  when  the 
articles  were  found,  and  had  there  voted  steadily  against  the  whole  proceeding. 

Judge  Peck's  case,  which  was  tried  in  1S31,  afi'ords  another  instance  in  point 

The  conduct  of  Judge  I'eck  had  been  the  subject  of  much  animadversion  and 
comment  by  the  public,  and  had  been  for  four  years  pending  before  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  before  it  finally  came  to  trial.  It  was  not  possible  but 
that  many  of  the  Senate  had  both  formed  and  expressed  opinions  upon  Peck's 
proceedings,  and  yet  it  never  occurred  to  that  good  lawyer  to  make  objection  to 
his  triers.     Nor  did  the  Managers  challenge,  although  Webster  of  Massachusetts 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  93 

was  a  raorabpr  of  the  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  wliom  the 
petition  for  impeachment  was  referred,  and  which,  after  examination,  reporteu 
thereon  "  leave  to  withdraw,"  and  8prague,  of  Maine,  voted  against  the  proceed- 
ings in  the  House,  while  Livingston,  of  Louisiani,  voted  for  them.  All  of  these 
gentlemen  sat  upon  the  trial,  and  voted   as  they  did    in   the   House. 

A  very  remarkable  and  instructive  case  was  that  of  Judge;  Addison,  of  Penn- 
sylvania, in  1804.  There,  after  the  articles  of  impeachment  were  framed,  the  trial 
was  postponed  to  another  session  of  the  legislature.  Meanwhile,  three  members 
of  the  House  of  Ri^presentatives.  who  had  voted  for  the  articles  of  impeachment, 
were  elected  to  the  Senate  and  became  the  triers  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  of 
which  they  had  solemnly  voted  the  respondent  to  be  guilty.  To  their  sitting  on  the 
trial  Judge  Addison  objected,  but  after  an  exhaustive  argument  his  objectioa 
was  overruled,  17  to  6.  Two  of  the  minority  were  the  gentlemen  who  bad 
voted  him  guilty,  and  who  themselves  objected  to  sitting  on  the  trial. 

Thus  stands  the  case  upon  authority.     How  does  it  stand  upon  principle  ? 

In  a  conference  held  in  1691,  between  the  lords  and  commons,  on  a  proposi- 
tion to  limit  the  number  of  judges,  the  lords  made  answer  : 

That  in  the  case  of  impeachments,  which  are  the  groans  of  the  people,  and  for  the  highest 
crimes,  and  cany  with  them  a  greater  supposition  of  guilt  than  auy  other  accusation,  there 
all  the  lords  must  judge. 

There  have  beer^nany  instances  in  England  where  this  necessity,  that  no 
peer  be  excused  Trom  sitting  on  such  trials,  has  produced  curious  results. 
Brothers  have  sat  upon  the  trials  of  brothers,  fathers  upon  the  trials  of  sons  and 
daughters,  uncles  upon  the  trials  of  nephews  and  nieces;  no  excuse  being 
admitted. 

One,  and  a  most  peculiar  and  painful  instance,  will  suffice  upon  this  point  to 
illustrate  the  strength  of  the  rule.  In  the  trial  of  Anne  Bullen,  the  wife  of  one 
sovereign  of  England,  and  the  mother  of  another,  her  father.  Lord  Rochefort, 
and  her  uncle,  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  sat  as  judges  and  voted  guilty,  although 
one  of  the  charges  against  the  daughter  and  niece  was  a  criminal  intimacy  with 
her  brothei",  the  son  and  nephew  of  the  judges. 

It  would  seem  impossible  that  in  a  proceeding  before  such  a  tribunal  so  con- 
stituted there  could  be  a  challenge,  because  as  the  number  of  triers  is  limited 
by  law,  and  as  there  are  not  now,  and  never  have  been,  any  provisions,  either  iu 
England  or  iu  this  country,  for  substituting  another  for  the  challenged  party,  aa 
a  talesman  is  substituted  in  a  jury,  the  accused  might  escape  punishment  alto- 
gether by  challenging  a  sufficient  number  to  prevent  a  quorum,  or  the  accuser 
might  oppress  the  respondent  by  challenging  all  persons  favorable  to  him  until 
the  necessary  unanimity  for  conviction  was  secured. 

This  proceeding  being  but  an  inquest  of  office,  and,  except  in  a  few  rare 
instances,  always  partaking,  more  or  less,  of  political  considerations,  and  re- 
quired to  be  discussed,  before  presentation  to  the  triers,  by  the  co-ordinate  branch 
of  the  legislature,  it  is  im)K)ssible  that  senators  should  not  have  opinions  and 
convictions  ujion  the  subject-matter  more  or  less  decidedly  formed  before  the 
case  reaches  them.  If,  therefore,  challenges  could  be  allowed  because  of  such 
opinions,  as  in  the  case  of  jurors,  no  trial  could  go  forward,  because  every  intel- 
ligent senator  could  be  objected  to  ujion  one  side  or  the  other. 

I  should  have  hardly  dared  to  trouble  the  Senate  with  such  minutenesa  of 
citation  and  argument  upon  this  point,  were  it  not  that  certain  persons  and 
papers  outside  of  this  body,  by  sophistries  drawn  from  the  analogies  of  the  pro- 
ceedings in  courts  before  juries,  have  endeavored,  in 'advance,  to  prejudice  the 
public  mind,  but  little  instructed  in  this  topic,  because  of  the  infrequency  of 
impeachments,  against  the  legal  validity  and  propriety  of  the  proceedings  upon 
this  trial. 

I  may  be  permitted,  without  offence,  further  to  state  that  these  and  simihir 


94  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

reasons  have  prevented  the  Managers  from  obji'ctingby  challenge  or  otherwise  to 
the  competency  of  one  of  the  triers  of  near  atHuity  to  the  accused. 

We  believe  it  is  his  right,  nay,  his  duty  to  the  State  he  represents,  to  sit  upon 
the  trial  as  he  would  upon  any  other  matter  which  should  come  before  the  Sen- 
ate. His  seat  and  vote  belong  to  his  constiluents,  and  not  to  himself,  to  be 
used  according  to  his  best  judgment  upon  every  grave  matter  that  comes  before 
the  Senate. 

Again,  as  political  considerations  are  involved  in  this  trial  raising  questions 
of  interest  to  the  constituents  of  every  senator,  it  is  his  right  and  duty  to  express 
himself  as  fully  and  freely  u])on  such  questions  as  upon  any  other,  even  to 
express  a  belief  in  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  or  to  say  "  he  will  sus- 
tain him  in  the  course  he  is  taking,"  although  he  so  says  after  accusation  brought. 
Let  me  illustrate.  Suppose  that  after  this  impeachmeni  had  been  voted  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  the  constituents  of  any  senator  had  called  a  public 
meeting  to  sustain  the  President  against  what  they  were  pleased  to  terin  the 
'*  tyrannical  acts  of  Congress  towards  him  in  impeaching  him,"  and  should  call 
upon  their  senator  to  attend  and  take  part  in  such  meeting,  I  do  not  conceive 
that  it  would,  or  ought  to  be  legally  objected  against  him  as  a  disqualitication  to 
sit  upon  this  trial,  upon  the  principles  1  have  stated,  if  he  should  attend  the  meet- 
ing, or  favor  the  object,  or,  if  his  engagements  in  the  Senate  prevented  his  leav- 
ing, I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  legal  objection  in  the  books  to  his  writing 
a  letter  to  such  meeting,  contaming,  among  other  things,^tatemeuts  like  the 
following  : 

Senate  Chamber,  February  2A,  1868. 
Gentlemen':  My  public  and  professional  engagements  will  be  such  on  the  4th  of  March 
that  I  am  reluctantly  couipelled  to  decline  your  invitation  to  be  present  and  address  the 
meeting  to  be  held  in  our  city  on  that  day. 

That  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  sincerely  endeavored  to  preserve  these  (cur  free 
institutions)  from  violation  I  have  no  doubt,  aud  I  have,  therefore,  throughout  the  unfortu- 
nate difference  of  opitiinn  between  him  and  Congress,  sustained  him.  And  this  I  shall  con- 
tinue to  do  as  long  as  lie  shall  prove  faithful  to  duty.  With  m^'  best  thanks  for  the  honor 
you  have  done  me  by  your  invitation,  and  regretting  that  it  is  not  in  my  power  to  accept  it, 
I  remain,  with  regard,  your  obedient  servant, 

REVERDY  JOHNSON. 

We  should  have  as  much  right  to  expect  his  vote  on  a  clearly -proven  case  of 
guilty  as  had  King  Henry  the  Eighth  to  hope  for  the  vote  of  her  father  against 
bis  wife.     He  got  it. 

King  Henry  knew  the  strength  of  his  case,  aud  we  know  the  strength  of  ours 
against  this  respondent. 

If  it  be  said  that  this  is  an  infelicity,  it  is  a  sufficient  and  decisive  answer  that 
it  is  the  infelicity  of  a  precise  constitutional  provision,  wliich  provides  that  the 
Senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  impeachments,  and  the  only  security 
against  bias  or  prejudice  on  the  part  of  any  senator  is  that  tico-t/zirds  oi'  tha  sen- 
ators present  are  necessary  for  conviction. 

To  this  rule  there  is  but  one  possible  exception,  founded  on  both  reason  and 
authority,  that  a  senator  may  not  be  a  judge  in  his  own  case. 

I  have  thought  it  necessary  to  determine  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  Trib- 
unal, before  we  attend  to  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the  accusation  before  it. 

The  first  eight  articles  set  out  in  several  distinct  forms  the  acts  of  the  respond- 
ent in  removing  Mr.  Stanton  from  office,  and  appointitig  Mr  Thomas,  ad  inferhn, 
difFiring  in  legal  effect  in  the  purposes  for  which  and  the  intent  with  which, 
either  or  both  of  the  acts  were  done,  and  the  legal  duties  and  rights  infringed, 
and  the  acts  of  Congress  violated  in  so  doing. 

All  the  articles  allege;  these  acts  to  be  in  contravention  of  his  oath  of  office, 
and  in  disregard  of  the  duties  thereof. 

If  they  are  so,  however,  the  President  might  have  the  2>ower  to  do  them  under 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  95 

the  law;   ptill,  being  so  done,  they  are  acts  of  official  misconduct,  and,  as  we 
have  sei'u,  impeachable. 

The  Pret^iilent  has  the  legal  power  to  do  many  acts  which,  if  done  in  disre- 
gard of  his  duty,  or  for  improper  purposes,  then  the  exercise  of  that  power  is 
an  official  misdemeanor. 

Ex.  gr:  he  has  the  power  of  par-lon ;  if  exercised  in  a  given  case  for  a  corrupt 
aiotive,  as  for  the  payment  of  money,  or  wantonly  pardoning  all  criminals,  it 
would  be  a  misdemeanor.     Examples  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely. 

Article  first,  stripped  of  legal  verbiage,  alleges  that,  having  suspended  Mr. 
Stanton  and  reported  the  same  to  the  Senate,  which  refused  to  concur  in  the 
suspension,  and  Stanton  having  rightfully  resumed  the  duties  of  his  office,  the 
respondent,  with  knowledge  of  the  facts,  issued  an  order  which  is  recited  for 
Stanton's  removal,  with  intent  to  violate  the  act  of  March  2,  1867,  to  regulate 
the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,  and  with  the  further  intent  to  remove  Stan- 
ton from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  then  in  the  lawful  discharge  of  its 
duties,  in  contravention  of  said  act  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  and  against  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Article  2  charg.-s  that  the  President,  without  authority  of  law,  on  the  2l3t  of 
February,  ISGS,  issued  letter  of  authority  to  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  War  ad  inferhn,  the  Senate  being  in  session,  in  violation  of  the  tenure- 
of-office  act,  and  with  intent  to  violate  it  and  the  Constitutiun,  there  being  no 
vacancy  in  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War. 

Article  3  alleges  the  same  act  as  done  without  authority  of  law,  and  alleges 
an  intent  to  violate  the  Oonslitution. 

Article  4  charges  that  the  President  conspired  with  Lorenzo  Tliomas  and 
divers  other  persons,  with  intent,  by  intimidation  and  threats,  to  prevent  Mr. 
Stanton  from  holding  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  in  violation  of  the  Consti- 
tution and  of  the  act  of  July  31,  1861. 

Article  5  charges  the  same  conspiracy  with  Thomas  to  pi-event  Mr.  Stanton's 
holding  his  office,  and  thereby  to  prevent   the  execution  of  the  civil  tenure  act. 

Article  6  charges  that  the  President  conspired  with  Thomas  to  seize  and 
possess  the  property  under  the  control  of  the  War  Department  hy  force,  in  con- 
travention of  the  act  of  July  31,  1861,  and  with  intent  to  disregard  the  civil 
tenure-of-office  act. 

Article  7  charges  the  same  conspiracy,  with  intent  only  to  violate  the  civil 
tenure-of-office  act.  , 

Articles  3d,  4th,  5th,  6th,  and  7th  may  all  be  considered  together,  as  to  the 
proof  to  support  them. 

It  will  be  shown  that  having  removed  Stanton  and  appointed  Thomas,  the 
President  sent  Thomas  to  the  War  Office  to  obtain  possession  ;  that  having  been 
met  by  Stanton  with  a  denial  of  his  rights,  Thomas  retired,  and  after  consulta- 
tion with  the  President,  Thomas  asserted  his  purpose  to  take  possession  of  the 
War  Office  by  force,  making  his  boast  in  several  public  places  of  his  intentions 
so  to  do,  hut  was  prevented  by  being  promptly  arrested  by  process  from  the  court. 

This  will  be  shown  by  the  evidence  of  Hon.  Mr.  Van  Ilorn,  a  member  of  the 
House,  who  was  present  when  the  demand  for  possession  of  the  War  OtHce  was 
made  by  General  Thomas,  already  made  public. 

By  the  testimony  of  the  Hon.  Mr.  Burleigh,  who,  after  that,  in  the  evening  of 
the  twenty-first  of  February,  was  told  by  Thomas  that  he  intended  to  take  pos- 
session of  the  War  Office  by  force  the  following  morning,  and  invited  him  up  to 
see  the  performance.  Mr.  Burleigh  attended,  but  the  act  did  not  come  off,  for 
Thomas  had  been  arrested  and  held  to  bail. 

By  Thomas  boasting  at  Willards'  hotel  on  the  same  evening  that  he  should 
call  on  General  Grant  for  military  force  to  put  him  in  possession  of  the  office, 
and  he  did  not  ^ee  how  Grant  could  refuse  it. 

Article  8  charges  that  the  appointment  of  Thomas  was  made  for  the  purpose 


96  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

of  getting  control  of  the  disbursement  of  the  moneys  appropriated  for  the  mili- 
tary service  and  Department  of  War. 

In  addition  to  the  proof  already  adduced,  it  will  be  shown  that,  after  the 
appointment  of  Thomas,  which  must  have  been  known  to  the  members  of  his 
cabinet,  the  President  caused  a  formal  notice  to  be  served  on  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  to  the  end  that  the  Secretary  might  answer  the  requisitions  for 
money  of  Thomas,  and  this  was  only  prevented  by  the  firmness  with  which 
Stanton  retained  possession  of  the  books  and  papers  of  the  War  Office. 

It  will  be  seen  that  every  fact  charged  in  Article  1  is  admitted  by  the  answer 
of  the  respondent ;  the  intent  is  also  admitted  as  charged  ;  that  is  to  say,  to  set 
aside  the  civil  tenure-of- office  act,  and  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  from  the  office  of 
the  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  and,  if  not  justified,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution   itself. 

The  only  question  remaining  is,  does  the  respondent  justify  himself  by  the 
Constitution  and  laws  1 

On  this  he  avers,  that  by  the  Constitution,  there  is  "conferred  on  the  President, 
as  a  part  of  the  executive  power,  the  power  at  any  and  all  times  of  removing 
from  ofiice  all  executive  officers  for  cause,  to  be  judged  of  by  the  President 
alotie,  and  that  he  verily  believes  that  the  executive  power  of  removal  from 
office,  confided  to  him  by  the  Constitution,  as  aforesaid,  includes  the  power  of 
suspension  from  office  indefinitely." 

Now,  these  offices,  so  vacated,  must  be  filled,  temporarily  at  least,  by  his 
appointment,  because  government  must  go  on;  there  can  be  no  interregnum  in 
the  execution  of  the  laws  in  an  organized  government;  he  claims,  therefore,  of 
necessity,  the  right  to  fill  their  places  with  appointments  of  his  choice,  and  that 
this  power  cannot  be  restrained  or  limited  in  any  degree  by  any  law  of  Congress, 
because,  he  avers,  "  that  the  power  was  conferred,  and  the  duty  of  exercising  it 
in  fit  cases  was  imposed  on  the  President  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  the  President  could  not  be  de[)rived  of  this  power,  or  relieved 
of  this  duty,  nor  could  tlie  same  be  vested  by  law  in  the  President  and  the 
Senate  jointly,  either  in  part  or  whole." 

This,  then,  is  the  plain  and  inevitable  issue  before  the  Senate  and  the 
American  people : 

Has  the  President,  under  the  Constitution,  the  more  than  kingly  prerogative 
at  will  to  remove  from  office  and  suspend  from  office  indefinitely,  all  executive 
officers  oii"  the  United  States,  either  civil,  military,  or  naval,  at  any  and  all  times, 
and  fill  the  vacancies  with  creatures  of  his  own  appointment,  for  his  own  pur- 
poses, without  any  restraint  whatever,  or  possibility  of  restraint  by  the  Senate 
or  by  Congress  through  laws  duly  enacted  ?    ' 

The  House  of  Representatives,  in  behalf  of  the  people,  join  this  issue  by 
affii'uiing  ihat  the  exercise  of  such  powers  is  a  high  misdem(.'anor  in  office. 

If  the  affirmative  is  maintained  by  the  respondent,  then,  so  far  as  the  first 
eight  articles  are  concerned — unless  such  corrupt  purposes  are  shown  as  will  of 
themselves  make  th<',  exercise  of  a  legal  power  a  crime — the  respondent  must  go, 
and  ought  to  go  quit  and  tree. 

Therefore,  by  these  articles  and  the  answers  thereto,  the  momentous  question, 
here  and  now,  is  raised  whether  the  /^/r.s/f/tv/^/aZ  (il/ice  if.sc//  ( ij'  it  /ins  the  pre- 
roi^atices  and  jmwer  clanncd  fur  it)  ought,  in. /art,  to  exist  as  a  jxirt  of  the  con- 
stitutional govcrmnent  of  a  free  j)eoplc,  while  by  the  last  three  articles  the 
simpler  and  less  imiiortant  infjuiry  is  to  be  determined,  whether  Andrew  John- 
son has  so  conducted  himself  that  he  ought  longer  to  hold  any  constitutional 
olHce  whatever.  TMie  latter  sinks  to  mi'rited  insignificance  compared  with  the 
grandeur  of  the  former. 

If  that  is  sustained,  then  a  right  and  power  hitherto  unclaimed  and  unknown 
to  the  people  of  the  country  is  engrafted  on  the  Cini<titation,  most  alarming  in 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  97 

ils  extent,  most  corniptinf^  in  its  influence,  most  dangerous  in  its   tendencies, 
and  most  tyrauuical  in  its  exercise. 

Whoever,  therefore,  votes  "not  guilty"  on  these  articles  votes  to  enchain 
our  free  institutions,  and  to  prostrate  them  at  the  feet  of  any  man  who,  being 
President,  may  choose  to  control  them. 

For  this  most  stupendous  and  unlimited  prerogative  the  rcs))ondent  cites  no 
line  and  adduces  no  word  of  constitutional  enactment — indeed  he  could  not, 
for  the  only  mention  of  removal  from  office  in  the  Constitution  is  as  a  part  of 
the  judgment  in  case  of  impeachment,  and  the  only  power  of  appointment  is  by 
nomination  to  the  Senate  of  oflicers  to  be  appointed  by  their  advice  and  consent, 
save  a  qualified  and  limited  power  of  appointment  by  the  President  when  the 
Senate  is  not  in  session.  Whence  then  does  the  respondent  by  his  answer 
claim  to  have  derived  this  power  ?  I  give  him  thebenetit  of  his  own  words, 
"that  it  was  practically  settled  by  the  first  Congress  of  the  United  States." 
Again,  I  give  him  the  benefit  of  his  own  phrases  as  set  forth  in  his  message  to 
the  Senate  of  2d  of  March,  1867,  made  a  part  of  his  answer:  "  the  question  was 
decided  by  the  House  of  Representatives  by  a  vote  of  34  to  20.  (in  this,  how- 
ever, he  is  mistaken,)  and  in  the  Senate  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent." In  the  same  answer  he  admits  that  before  he  undertook  the  exercise  of 
this  most  dangerous  and  stupendous  power,  after  75  years  of  study  and  exami- 
nation of  the  Constitution  by  ihe  people  living  under  it,  another  Congress  haK 
decided  that  there  was  no  sucii  unlimited  power.  So  that  he  admits  that  this 
tremendous  power  which  he  claims  from  the  legislative  construction  of  one  Con- 
gress by  a  vote  of  34  to  20  in  the  House,  and  a  tie  vote  in  the  Senate,  has  been 
denied  by  another  House  of  more  than  three  times  the  number  of  members  by 
a  vote  of  133  to  37  ;  and  by  a  Senate  of  more  than  double  the  numl)er  of 
senators  by  a  vote  of  38  to  10,  and  this  too  after  he  had  presented  to  them  all 
the  arguments  in  its  favor  that  he  could  find  to  sustain  his  claim  of  power. 

If  he  derives  this  power  from  the  practical  settlement  of  one  Congress  of  a 
legislative  construction  of  the  constitutional  provisions,  why  may  not  such  con- 
struction be  as  practically  settled  more  authoritatively  by  the  greater  unanimity 
of  another  Congress — yea,  as  we  shall  see,  of  many  other  Congresses  t 

The  great  question,  however,  still  returns  upon  us — whence  comes  this 
power? — how  derived  or  conferred?  Is  it  unlimited  and  unrestrained.'  illim- 
itable and  unrestrainable,  as  the  President  claims  it  to  be  1 

In  jjresenting  this  topic  it  will  be  my  duty,  and  I  shall  attempt  to  do  nothing 
more,  than  to  state  the  propositions  of  law  and  the  authorities  to  supi)orr,  them 
so  far  as  they  may  come  to  my  knowledge,  leaving  the  argument  and  illustra- 
tions of  the  question  to  be  extendinl  in  the  close  by  abler  and  better  hantis. 

If  a  power  of  removal  in  the  Executive  is  found  at  all  in  the  Constitution,  it 
is  admitted  to  be  an  implied  one,  either  from  die  power  of  appointment,  or 
because  "the  executive  power  is  vested  in  the  President." 

Has  the  executive  power  granted  by  the  Constitution  by  these  words  any 
limitations'^  Does  the  Constitution  invest  the  President  with  all  executive 
power,  prerogatives,  privileges,  and  immunities  enjoyed  by  executive  officers  of 
other  countries — kings  and  emperors — without  limitation  ?  If  so,  then  the 
Constitution  has  been  much  more  liberal  in  granting  powers  to  the  Executive 
than  to  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government,  as  that  has  only  "all  legis- 
lative powers  herein  granted  [which]  shall  be  yested  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States;"  not  all  uncontrollable  legislative  powers,  as  there  art;  many  lim- 
itations upon  that  power  as  exercised  by  the  Parliament  of  Enghind  for 
example.  So  there  are  many  executive  powers  expressly  limited  in  the  Con- 
stitution, such  as  declaring  war,  making  rules  and  reguLitions  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  army  and  navy,  and  coining  money. 

As  some  executive  powers  are  limited  by  the  Constitution  itself,  is  it  not  clear 
that  the  words  "the  executive  power  is  vested  in  the  President"  do  not  confer 

7  I  P 


98  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

on  liirn  all  executive  powers,  but  must  be  construed  with  reference  to  other  con- 
stitutional provi:?ions  granting  or  regulating  specific  powers?  The  execu- 
tive power  of  appointment  is  clearly  limited  by  the  words  "he  shall  nominate 
and  loy  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  shall  appoint  embassa- 
dors, *  *  *  and  all  other  oflficerj>  of  the  United  Stales  whose  appointments 
are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  and  Avhich  shall  be  established  by  law." 

Is  it  not,  therefore,  more  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  the  Constitution  to 
imply  the  power  of  removal  from  the  power  of  appointment,  restrained  by  like 
limitations,  than  to  imply  it  solely  as  a  prerogative  of  executive  power  and  there- 
fore illimitable  and  uncontrollable?  Have  the  people  anywhere  else  in  the  Con- 
stitution granted  illimitable  and  uncontrollable  powers  eillier  to  the  executive  or 
any  other  branch  of  the  government  ?  Is  not  the  whole  frame  of  government 
one  of  checks,  balances,  and  limitations  ?  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  our  fathers, 
just  escaping  from  the  oppressions  of  monarchical  power,  and  so  dreading  it 
that  they  feared  the  very  name  of  king,  gave  this  more  than  kingly  power  to 
the  Executive,  illimitable  and  uncontrollable,  and  that  too  by  implication  merely? 

Upon  this  point  our  proposition  is,  that  the  Senate  being  in  session,  and  an 
office,  not  an  inferior  one,  within  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  being  filled, 
the  President  has  the  implied  power  of  inaugurating  the  removal  only  by  nom- 
ination of  a  successor  to  the  Senate,  which,  when  consented  to,  works  the  full 
removal  and  supersedeas  of  the  incumbent.  Such  has  been,  it  is  believed,  the 
practice  of  the  government  from  the  beginning  down  to  the  act  about  which 
we  are  inquiring.  Certain  it  is  that  Mr.  Webster,  in  the  Senate  in  1835,  so 
asserted  without  contradiction,  using  the  following  language  : 

If  one  man  be  Secretary  of  State,  and  another  be  appointed,  the  first  goes  out  by  the  mere 
force  of  tlie  appointment  of  the  other,  without  any  previous  act  of  removal  whatever. 
And  this  is  the  practice  of  the  govemmt-ut,  and  has  been  from  the  first.  In  all  the 
removals  which  have  been  made  they  have  generally  been  effected  simply  by  making  other 
appointments.  I  cannot  find  a  case  to  tlie  contrary.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  any  distinct 
otficial  act  of  removal.  I  have  looked  into  the  practice,  and  caused  inquiries  to  be  made  in 
the  depuitments,  and  I  do  not  learn  that  any  such  proceeding  is  known  as  an  entry  or  record 
of  the  removal  of  an  ofiicer  from  office,  and  the  Piesident  would  only  act  in  such  cases  by 
causii)<;  some  proper  record  or  entry  to  be  made  as  proof  of  the  fiict  of  removal.  I  am  aware 
that  there  have  been  some  cases  in  which  notice  has  been  scut  to  persons  in  office  that  their 
services  are  or  will  be,  after  a  given  day,  dispensed  with.  These  are  usually  cases  in  which 
the  object  is,  not  to  inform  the  incumbent  that  he  is  removed,  but  to  tell  him  that  a  successor 
either  is  or  by  a  day  named  will  be  appointed.  If  there  be  any  instances  in  which  such 
notice  is  given,  witliout  express  reierence  to  the  appointment  of  a  successor,  they  are  few  ; 
and  even  in  these  such  reference  must  be  implied,  because  in  no  case  is  there  any  distinct 
official  act  of  removal,  as  I  can  find,  unconnected  with  the  act  of  appointment. 

This  would  seem  to  reconcile  all  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  the  right 
of  remov.'d  being  in  the  President,  to  be  executed  suh  modo,  as  is  the  power  of 
appointment,  the  appointment,  when  consummated,  making  the  removal. 

This  power  was  elaborately  debated  in  the  first  Congress  upon  the  bills  estab- 
lishing a  Department  of  Fon.-ign  Affairs  and  the  War  Department.  The  debate 
arose  on  the  motion,  in  Conunittee  of  the  Whole,  to  strike  out,  after  the  title  of 
the  ofiiccn-,  the  words,  *'  to  be  removable  from  otlice  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States."  It  Avas  four  days  discussed  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  in  the 
House,  and  the  clause  retained  by  a  vote  of  20  yeas  to  34  nays,  which  seemed 
to  establish  the  power  of  removal  as  either  by  a  legislative  grant,  or  construction 
of  the  Constitution.  But  the  triumph  of  its  friends  was  short-lived,  for  when 
the  bill  came  up  in  the  House,  Mr.  lienson  moved  to  amend  it  by  altering  the 
second  section  of  the  bill,  so  as  to  implu  only  the  power  of  removal  to  be  in  the 
President,  by  inserting,  that  "  whenever  the  princi(ial  officer  shall  be  removed 
from  otlice  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  other  case  of 
vacancy,  the  chief  clerk  shall,  during  such  vacancy,  have  charge  and  custody 
of  all  records,  books,  and  papers  aj)()crtaining  to  the  department." 

Mr.  B'mson  "  declared  he  would  move  to  strike  out  the  words  in  the  first 
clause,  to  be  removable  by  the  President,  which  appeared  somewhat  like  a 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE   PRESIDENT.  99 

grant.  Now  tlie  mode  he  took  would  evade  that  point  and  establish  a  legislative 
construction  of  the  Constitution.  He  also  hoped  his  amendment  would  succeed 
in  reconciling  both  sides  of  the  House  to  the  decision  and  quieting  the  minds  of 
the  gentlemen." 

After  debate  the  amendment  was  carried,  30  to  IS.  Mr.  Benson  then  moved 
to  strike  out  the  words  "  to  be  removable  by  t!ie  President  of  the  United  States," 
which  was  carried,  31  to  19;  and  so  the  bill  was  engrossed  and  sent  to  the 
Senate. 

The  debates  of  that  body  being  in  secret  session,  we  have  no  record  of  the 
discussion  which  arose  on  llie  motion  of  Mr.  Benson  establishing  the  implied 
power  of  removal;  but  after  very  elaborate  consideration,  on  several  successive 
days,  the  words  implying  this  power  in  the  President  were  retained  by  the 
casting  vote  of  the  ekler  Adams,  the  Vice-President.  So,  if  this  claimed  "legis- 
lative settlement"  was  only  established  by  the  vote  of  the  second  executive 
officer  of  the  government.  Alas  !  most  of  our  woes  in  this  government  have  come 
from  Vice-Presidents.  When  the  bill  establishing  the  War  Department  came 
up,  the  same  words,  ''to  be  removable  by  the  President,"  were  struck,  out,  on 
the  motion  of  one  of  the  opponents  of  the  recognition  of  this  power,  by  a  vote  of 
24  to  22,  alike  amendment  to  that  of  the  second  section  of  the  act  establishing 
the  Department  of  State  being  inserted.  When,  six  years  afterwards,  the  De- 
partment of  the  Navy  was  established,  no  such  recognition  of  the  power  of  the 
President  to  remove  was  inserted  ;  and  as  the  measure  passed  by  a  strict  party 
vote,  47  yeas  to  41  nays,  it  may  well  be  conceived  that  its  advocates  did  not 
care  to  load  it  with  this  constitutional  question,  when  the  executive  power  was 
about  passing  into  other  hands,  for  one  cannot  read  tbe  debates  upon  this  ques- 
tion without  being  impressed  with  the  belief  that  reverence  for  the  cliaracter  of 
Washington  largely  determined  the  argument  in  the  first  Congress.  Neither 
party  did  or  could  have  looked  forward  to  such  an  executive  administration  as 
we  have  this  day. 

It  has* generally  been  conceded  in  subsequent  discussions  that  here  was  a  legis- 
lative determination  of  this  question,  but  I  humbly  submit  that  taking  the  whole 
action  of  Congress  together  it  is  very  far  from  being  determined.  I  should 
hardly  have  dared,  in  view  of  the  eminent  names  of  Plolmes,  Clay,  Webster, 
and  Calhoun  that  have  heretofore  made  the  admission,  to  have  ventured  the 
assertion,  were  it  not  that  in  every  case  they,  as  does  the  President  and  bis  coun- 
sel, rely  on  the  first  vote  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  sustaining  the  words  "  to 
be  removable  by  the  President,"  and  in  no  instance  take  any  notice  of  the  subse- 
quent proceedings  in  the  House  by  which  those  words  were  taken  out  of  the  bill. 
This  may  have  happened  because  Eliot's  Debates,  which  is  the  authority  most  fre- 
quently cited  in  these  discussions,  stops  with  the  vote  in  Committee  and  takes  no 
notice  of  the  further  discussion.  But  whatever  may  be  the  eifect  of  this  legis- 
lative construction  the  contemporaneous  and  subsequent  practice  of  the  govern- 
ment shows  that  the  President  made  no  removals  except  by  nominations  to  the 
Senate  when  in  session,  and  superseding  officers  by  a  new  commission  to  the 
confirmed  nominee.  Mr.  Adams,  in  that  remarkable  letter  to  Mr.  Pickering,  in 
which  he  desires  his  resignation,  rrquests  him  to  send  it  early  in  order  that  he 
may  nominate  to  the  Senate,  then  about  to  sit,  and  he  in  fact  removes  Mi*. 
Pickering  by  a  nomination.  Certainly  no  such  unlimited  power  has  ever  been 
claimed  by  any  of  the  earlier  Presidents  as  has  now  been  set  up  for  the  Presi- 
dent by  his  most  remarkable,  aye,  criminal  answer. 

It  will  not  have  escaped  attention  that  no  determination  was  made  by  that 
legislative  construction  as  to  liow  the  removal,  if  in  the  President's  power,  should 
be  made,  Avhich  is  now  the  question  in  dispute.  Tliat  has  been  determined  by 
the  universal  practice  of  the  government,  with  exceptions,  if  any,  so  rare  as  not 
to  be  worthy  of  consideration ;  so  that  we  now  claim  the  law  to  be  what  the  prac- 
.Ice  has  ever  been.     If,  however,  we  concede  the  power  of  removal  to  be  in  the 


100  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

President  as  an  implied  power,  yet  we  believe  it  cannot  be  successfully  con- 
tended upon  any  authorities  or  constant  practice  of  the  government  that  the 
execution  of  that  power  may  not  be  regulated  by  (he  Congress  of  the  United 
States  under  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  "  vests  in  Congress  the  power 
to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execu- 
tion •  *  *  all  powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  government  of 
the  United  States  or  in  any  department  or  officer  thereof." 

This  power  of  regulation  of  the  tenure  of  office,  and  the  manner  of  removal, 
has  always  been  exercised  by  Congress  unquestioned  until  now. 

On  the  15th  of  May,  1820,  (vol.  3  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  582,)  Congress  pro- 
vided for  the  terra  of  office  of  certain  officers  therein  named  to  be  four  years, 
but  made  them  removable  at  pleasure.  By  the  second  section  of  the  same  act 
Congress  removed  from  office  all  the  officers  therein  commissioned,  in  providing 
a  date  when  each  commission  should  expire.  Congress  has  thus  asserted  a  legis- 
lative power  of  removal  from  office;  sometimes  bypassing  acts  which  appear  to 
concede  the  power  to  the  President  to  remove  at  pleasure,  sometimes  restricting 
that  power  in  their  acts  by  the  most  stringent  provisions  ;  sometimes  conferring 
the  power  of  removal,  and  sometimes  that  of  appointment — the  acts  estab- 
lishing the  territorial  officers  being  most  conspicuous  in  this  regard. 

Upon  the  whole,  no  claim  of  exclusive  right  over  removals  or  appointments 
seems  to  have  been  made  either  by  the  Executive  or  by  Congress.  No  bill  was 
ever  vetoed  on  this  account  until  now. 

In  1818,  Mr.  Wirt,  then  Attorney  General,  giving  the  earliest  official  opinion 
on  this  question  coming  from  that  office,  said  that  only  where  Congress  had  not 
undertaken  to  restrict  the  tenure  of  office,  by  the  act  creating  it,  would  a  commis- 
sion issue  to  run  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President ;  but  if  the  tenure  was  tixed 
by  law,  then  commission  must  conform  to  the  law.  No  constitutional  scruples  as  to 
the  power  of  Congress  to  limit  the  tenure  of  office  seem  to  have  disturbed  the 
mind  of  that  great  lawyer.  But  this  was  before  any  attempt  had  been  made  by 
any  President  to  arrogate  to  himself  the  official  pationage  for  the  purpose  of  party 
or  personal  aggivandisement,  which  gives  the  only  value  to  this  opinion  as  an 
authority.  Since  the  Attorney  General's  office  has  become  a  political  one  I  shall 
not  trouble  the  Senate  with  citing  or  examining  the  opinions  of  its  occupants. 

In  1826  a  committee  of  the  Senate,  consisting  of  Mr.  Benton  of  ^NTissouri, 
chairman,  Mr.  Macon  of  North  Carolina,  Mr.  Van  Buren  of  New  York,  'Sir. 
Dickerson  of  New  Jersey,  Mr.  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Mr.  White  of  Ten- 
nessee, Mr.  Holmes  of  Maine,  Mr.  Hayne  of  South  Carolina,  and  Mv.  Pindlay 
of  Pennsylvania,  was  a])pointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  question  of 
restraining  the  power  of  the  President  over  removals  from  office,  who  made  a 
report  through  their  chairman,  i\Ir.  Benton,  setting  forth  tlie  extent  of  the  evils 
arising  from  the  power  of  appointment  to  and  removal  from  office  by  the  Presi- 
dent, declaring  tliat  the  Constitution  had  been  ciianged  in  this  regard,  and  that 
"  construction  and  legislation  have  accomplished  this  change,"  and  submitted 
two  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  one  providing  a  direct  election  of  the  Pres- 
ident by  the  people,  and  another  "  that  no  senator  or  representative  should  be 
apfjointed  to  any  place  until  the  exjiiration  of  the  presidential  term  in  which 
euch  person  shall  have  served  as  senator  or  representative,"  as  remedies  U>r 
some  of  the  evils  complained  of;  but  the  committee  say,  that  "  not  being  able 
to  reform  the  Constitution,  in  the  election  of  President  they  must  go  to  work 
ui)on  his  powers,  and  trim  down  these  by  statutory  cnnrtmvnts  whenever  it  can 
be  done  by  law  and  with  a  just  regard  to  the  proper  etlicicncy  of  government, 
and  for  this  ])iirpose  re|iorteil  six  bills — one,  to  regulate  the  publication  of  the 
laws  and  public  advertisements  ;  anotiier,  to  secure  in  ajjice  faithful  collectors 
and  dishursers  of  the  revenues,  and  to  displace  defaulters — the  iirst  section  of 
which  vacated  the  commissions  of  "all  officers,  after  a  given  date,  charged  with 
the  collection  and  disbursement  of  the  public  moneys  who  had  failed  to  account 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  101 

for  such  moneys  on  or  before  the  30th  day  of  September  preceding ;"  and  the 
second  section  enacted  that  "  at  the  same  time  a  nomiuiitiou  is  made  to  fill  a 
vacancy  occasioned  by  the  exercise  of  the  President's  power  to  remove  from 
office,  the  fact  of  the  removal  shall  be  stated  to  the  Senate  with  a  report  of  the 
reasons  for  which  snch  officers  may  have  been  removed  ;  also  a  bill  to  regulate 
the  appointment  of  postmasters  ;  and  a  bill  to  prevent  military  and  naval  officers 
from  being  dismissed  the  service  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  by  inserting 
a  clause  in  the  commission  of  such  officers  that  "  it  is  to  continue  in  force  during 
good  behavior,"  and  "  that  no  officer  shall  ever  hereafter  be  dismissed  the  service 
except  in  pursuance  of  the  sentence  of  a  court-martial,  or  upon  address  to  the 
President  from  the  two  houses  of  Congress." 

Is  it  not  remarkable  that  exactly  correlative  measures  to  these  have  been 
passed  by  the  39th  Congress,  and  are  now  the  subject  of  controversy  at  this 
bar  1 

It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  this  able  committee  that  Congress  had 
not  the  power  to  curb  the  Executive  in  this  regard,  because  they  asserted  the 
practice  of  dismissing  from  office  "  to  be  a  dangerous  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion." 

In  1830  Mr.  Holmes  introduced  and  discussed  in  the  Senate  a  series  of  reso- 
lutions which  contained,  among  other  things,  "  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  inquire, 
and  the  duty  of  the  President  to  inform  them,  when  and  for  what  causes  any 
officer  has  been  removed  in  the  rpce.is."  In  1S35  Mr.  Calhoun,  Mr.  Southard, 
Mr.  Bibb,  Mr.  Webster,  Mr.  Benton,  and  Mr.  King,  of  Georgia,  of  the  Senate, 
were  elected  a  committee  to  consider  the  subje(it  of  Executive  patronage,  and  the 
means  of  limiting  it.  That  committee,  with  but  one  dissenting  voice,  (Mr.  Ben- 
ton,) reported  a  bill  which  provided  in  its  third  section  "  that  in  all  nominations 
made  by  the  President  to  the  Senate,  to  fill  vacancies  occasioned  by  removal  from 
office,  the  fact  of  the  removal  shall  be  stated  to  the  Senate  at  the  same  time  that 
the  nomination  is  made,  with  a  statement  of  the  reasons  for  such  removal." 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  is  the  precise  section  reported  by  Mr.  Benton  in 
1826,  and  passed  to  a  second  reading  in  the  Senate.  After  much  discussion, 
the  bill  passed  the  Senate,  31  yeas,  16  nays — an  almost  two-thirds  vote.  Thus 
it  would  seem  that  the  ablest  men  of  that  day,  of  both  politic  il  parties,  sub- 
scribed to  the  power  of  Congress  to  limit  and  control  the  President  in  his 
removal  from  office. 

One  of  the  most  marked  instances  of  the  assertion  of  this  power  in  Congress 
will  be  found  in  the  act  of  February  25, 1863,  providing  for  a  national  ciu-rency  and 
the  office  of  Comptroller.  (Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  12,  p.  665.)  This  controls  both 
the  appointment  and  the  removal  of  that  officer,  enacting  that  he  shall  be 
appointed  on  the  nomination  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  shall  hold  his  otlic6  for  the  term 
of  five  years,  unless  sooner  removed  by  the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate.  This  Avas  substantially  re-enacted  June  3,  1864, 
with  the  addition  that  "  he  shall  be  removed  upon  reasons  to  be  communicated 
to  the  Senate." 

Where  were  the  vigilant  gentlemen  tlien,  in  both  houses,  who  now  so  denounce 
the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  the  appointment  and  removal  of  officers  by 
the  President  as  unconstitutional  ? 

It  will  be  observed  tha,t  the  Constitution  makes  no  distinction  between  the 
officers  of  the  army  and  navy  and  officers  in  tlie  civil  service,  so  far  as 
their  appointments  and  commissions,  removals  and  dismissals,  are  concerned. 
Their  commissions  have  ever  run,  "to  hold  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the 
President;"  yet  Congress,  by  the  act  of  17th  July,  1862,  (Statutes  at  Large, 
volume  12,  page  596,)  enacted  "that  the  President  of  the  United  States  be, 
and  hereby  is,  authorized  and  requested  to  dismiss  and  discharge  from  the  mili- 
tary service,  either  in  the  army,  navy,  marine  corps,  or  volunteei^  force,  in  the 


102  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

Unitefl  States  perviee,  any  officer  for  any  cause  whicli,  in  liis  judgment,  either 
renders  such  officer  unsuitable  for  or  whose  dii^mission  would  promote  the  pub- 
lic service." 

Why  was  it  necessary  to  authorize  the  President  so  to  do,  if  he  had  tin-  Con- 
stitutional power  to  dismiss  a  military  officer  at  pleasure  1  and  his  powers, 
whatever  they  are,  as  is  not  donl)ted,  are  the  same  as  in  a  civil  office.  The 
answer  to  this  suggestion  may  be  that  this  act  was  simply  one  of  supereroga- 
tion, only  authorizing  hitn  to  do  what  he  was  empowered  already  to  do,  and 
therefore  not  specially  pertinent  to  this  discussion. 

But  on  the  13th  of  July,  1866,  Congress  enacted  "that  no  officer  in  the  mil- 
itary or  naval  service  sholl,  in  time  of  peace,  he  dismissed  from  service  except 
upon,  and  in  pursuance  of,  the  sentence  of  a  court-martial  to  that  effect."  What 
becomes,  then,  of  the  respondent's  objection  that  Congress  cannot  regulate  his 
power  of  removal  from  office  1  In  the  snow-storm  of  his  vetoes  Avhy  did  no 
flake  light  down  on  this  provision  ?  It  concludes  the  whole  question  here  at 
issue.     It  is  approved;  appi'oval  signed  Andrew  Johnson. 

It  will  not  be  claimed,  however,  if  the  tenure-of-office  act  is  constitutional, 
(and  that  question  I  shall  not  argue,  except  as  has  been  done  incidentally,  for 
reasons  hereafter  to  be  stated,)  that  he  could  remove  Mr.  Stanton  provided  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  War  comes  within  its  provisions,  and  one  claim  made  here 
before  you,  by  the  answer,  is  that  that  ulLce  is  excepted  by  the  terms  of  the  law. 
Of  course  I  shall  not  argue  to  the  Senate,  composed  mostly  of  those  who  passed 
the  bill,  what  their  wishes  and  intentions  were.  Upon  that  point  1  cannot  aid 
them,  but  the  construction  of  the  act  furnishes  a  few  suggestions.  First  let  us 
determiiie  the  exact  status  of  Mr.  Stanton  at  the  moment  of  its  passage.  The 
ansAver  admits  Mr.  Stanton  Avas  appointed  and  commissioned  and  duly  qnalilled 
as  Secretary  of  War  under  jMr.  Lincoln  in  pursuanc(^  of  the  act  of  17.S9.  In 
the  absence  of  any  other  legislation  or  action  of  the  President,  he  legally  held 
his  office  during  the  term  of  his  natural  life.  This  consideration  is  an  answer 
to  every  suggestion  as  to  the  Secretary  hokiing  over  from  one  presidential  term 
to  anotiier. 

On  the  2d  of  March,  1867,  the  tenure-of-office  act  provided,  in  substance,  that 
all  civil  officers  duly  qualitied  to  act  by  appointment,  Avith  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  shall  be  entitled  to  hold  such  office  until  a  successor  shall 
have  been  in  like  manner  appointed  and  duly  qualified,  except  as  herein  other- 
wise provided,  to  wit:  "provided  that  the  Secretaries  shall  hold  their  office  dur- 
ing the  term  of  the  President  by  whom  tliey  may  have  been  appointed,  and  for 
one  month  thereafter,  subject  to  removal  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate." 

P)y  whom  was  jMr.  Stanton  appointed  ?  By  Islv.  Lincoln.  Whose  presiden- 
tial term  was  "he  holding  undtM'  when  tin;  buflet  of  Booth  became  a  proximate 
cause  of  this  trial?  Was  not  his  appointment  in  full  force  at  tbat  hour?  Had 
any  act  of  the  respondent  up  to  the  12th  dny  of  August  last  vitiattjd  or  inter- 
fered with  that  ai)pointment'?  Whose  presidential  term  is  the  respondent  now 
serving  out?  His  own,  or  Mr.  Lincoln's?  If  his  OAvn,  he  is  entitled  to  four 
years  up  to  the  anniversary  of  the  murder,  because  each  presidential  term  is 
four  years  by  the  Constitution,  and  the  regular  recurrence  of  those  terms  is  fixed 
by  the  act  of  May  8,  1792.  If  he  is  serving  out  the  remainder  of  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's terra,  then  his  term  of  oilice  expires  on  the  4th  .of  i\Iarch,  1869,  if  it  does 
not  before. 

Is  not  the  statement  of  these  propositions  their  sufficient  argument?  If  Mr. 
Stanton's  commission  was  vacated  in  any  Avay  by  the '' tciuue-of-office  act," 
then  it  must  iiave  ceased  one  month  after  the  4th  of  March,  ]S6r),  to  wit:  April 
4,  1865.  Or,  if  the  "  tenure-of-of)ice  net"  had  no  retroactive  efTect,  then  his 
commission  must  have  ceased  if  it  Iiad  llic  ef^'cct  to  Viicate  his  commission  at  all 
ou  the  passage  of  the  act,  to  wit,  2d  March,  1S67  ;  and,  iu  that  case,  from  that 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  103 

date  to  the  present  lie  must  Lave  been  exeici.sing  his  office  in  contravention  of 
the  second  section  of  the  act,  because  he  was  not  commissioned  in  accordance 
M'iih  its  provisions.  And  the  President,  by  "  emph)ying"  him  in  so  doing  from 
2d  March  to  12th  August,  became  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  under  the  pro- 
vision of  the  sixth  section  of  said  act ;  so  that  if  the  President  shall  succeed  in 
convincing  the  Senate  that  Mr.  Stanton  has  been  acting  as  Secretary  of  AVar 
against  the  provisions  of  the  "  tenure-of-office  act,"  which  he  will  do  if  he  con- 
vince them  that  that  act  vacated  in  any  way  Mr.  Stanton's  commission,  or  that 
he  himself  was  not  serving  out  the  remainder  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  piesidential  term, 
then  tiie  Ilouse  of  Representatives  have  but  to  report  another  article  for  this 
misdemeanor  to  remove  the  President  upon  his  own  confession. 

It  has  been  said,  however,  that  in  the  discussion  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
this  law,  observations  were  made  by  senators  tending  to  show  that  it  did  not 
apply  to  .\fr.  Stanton,  because  it  was  asserted  that  no  member  of  the  cabinet  of 
the  President  would  wish  to  hold  his  place  against  the  wishes  of  his  cliief,  by 
v/hom  he  had  been  called  into  council  ;  and  these  arguments  have  been  made 
the  groundwork  (if  attack  upon  a  meritorious  officer,  which  may  have  so  intluenced 
the  minds  of  senators  that  it  is  my  duty  to  observe  upon  them  to  meet  arguments 
to  the  prejudice  of  my  cause. 

Without  stopping  to  deny  the  correctness  of  the  general  proposition,  there 
seems  to  be  at  least  two  patent  answers  to  it. 

The  respondent  did  not  call  Mr.  Stanton  into  his  council.  The  blow  of  the 
assassin  did,  call  the  respondent  to  preside  over  a  cabinet  of  which  Mr.  Stanton 
was  then  an  honored  member,  beloved  of  its  Chief;  and  if  the  respondent  deserted 
the  principles  under  which  he  was  elected,  betrayed  his  trust,  and  sought  to 
return  rebels,  whom  the  valor  of  our  armies  had  subdued,  again  into  pow(^r,  are 
not  those  reasons,  not  only  why  Mr.  Stanton  should  not  desert  his  post,  but,  as 
a  true  patriot,  maintain  it  all  the  more  firmly  against  this  unlooked-for  treaciiery? 

Is  it  not  known  to  you.  Senators,  and  to  the  country,  that  Mr.  Stanton  retains 
this  unpleasant  and  distasteful  position,  not  of  his  own  will  alone,  but  at  the 
behest  of  a  majority  of  those  who  represent  the  people  of  this  country  in  both 
bouses  of  its  legislature,  and  after  the  solemn  decision  of  the  senate  that  any 
attempt  to  remove  him  without  their  concurrence  is  unconstitutional  and 
unlawful  ? 

To  desert  it  now,  therefore,  would  be  to  imitate  the  treachery  of  his  acci- 
dental Chief.  But  whatever  may  be  the  construction  of  the  "  tenure  of  civil  office 
act"  by  others,  or  as  regards  others,  Andrew  Johnson,  the  respondent,  is  con- 
cluded upon  it. 

He  permitted  Mi*.  Stanton  to  exercise  the  duties  of  his  office  in  spite  of  it,  if 
that  office  were  affected  by  it.  He  suspended  him  under  its  provisions;  he 
reported  that  suspension  to  the  Senate,  with  his  reasons  therefor  in  accordance 
with  its  provisions;  and  the  Senate,  acting  under  it,  declined  to  concur  with  him, 
whereby  Mr.  Stanton  was  reinstated.  In  the  well-known  language  of  the  law, 
is  not  the  respondent  estopped  by  his  solemn  official  acts  from  denying  the 
legality  and  constitutional  propriety  of  Mr.  Stanton's  position '] 

Before  proceeding"  further,  I  desire  most  earnestly  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  Senate  the  averments  of  the  President  in  his  answer,  by  which  he  justifies 
hi:3  action  in  attempting  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton,  and  the  reasons  which  con- 
trolled him  in  so  doing.  He  claims  that  on  the  12th  day  of  August  last  he  had 
become  fully  of  the  opinion  that  he  had  the  power  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  or 
any  other  executive  officer,  or  suspend  him  from  office  and  to  appoint  any  other 
person  to  act  instead  "indefiuitely  and  at  his  pleasure;"  that  he  was  fully 
advised  and  believed,  as  he  still  believes,  that  the  tenure  of  civil  office  act  was 
unconstitutional,  inoperative,  and  void  in  all  its  provisions  ;  and  that  he  had  then 
determined  at  all  hazards,  if  Stanton  could  not  be  otherwise  got  rid  of,  to  remove 
him  from  office  in  spite  of  the  provisions  of  that  act  and  the  action  of  the  Senate 


104  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

under  it,  if  for  no  other  purpose,  in  order  to  raige  for  a  judicial  decision  the  ques- 
tion affecting  the  lawful  right  of  said  Stanton  to  persist  in  refusing  to  quit  the 
office. 

Thus  it  appears  that  with  full  intent  to  resist  the  power  of  the  Senate,  to  hold 
the  tenure  of  office  act  void,  and  to  exercise  this  illimitable  power  claimed  by 
him,  he  did  suspend  Mr.  Stanton,  apparently  in  accordance  with  the  provi- 
sions of  the  act ;  he  did  send  the  message  to  the  Senate  within  the  time  pre- 
scribed by  the  act ;  he  did  give  his  reasons  for  the  suspension  to  tlie  Senate,  and 
argued  them  at  lengtli,  accompanied  by  what  he  claimed  to  be  the  evidence  of  the 
official  misconduct  of  Mr.  Stanton,  and  thus  invoked  the  action  of  the  Senate 
to  assist  him  in  displacing  a  higli  officer  of  the  government  under  the  provisions 
of  an  act  which  he  at  that  very  moment  believed  to  be  unconstitutional,  inope- 
rative and  void,  thereby  showing  that  he  was  willing  to  make  use  of  a  void 
act  and  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  as  his  tools,  to  do  that  which  he 
believed  neither  had  any  constitutional  power  to  do.  Did  not  every  member 
of  the  Senate,  when  that  message  came  in  announcing  the  suspension  of  Mr. 
Stanton,  understand  and  believe  that  the  President  was  acting  in  this  case  as 
he  had  done  in  every  other  case  under  the  provisions  of  this  act?  Did  not 
both  sides  discuss  the  question  under  its  provisions  1  Would  any  Senator  upon 
this  floor,  on  either  side,  so  demean  himself  as  to  consider  the  question  one  moment 
if  he  had  known  it  was  then  within  the  intent  and  purpose  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  treat  the  deliberations  and  action  of  the  Senate  as  void 
and  of  non-eff"ect  if  its  decision  did  not  comport  with  his  views  and  pur- 
poses ;  and  yet,  while  acknowledging  the  intent  was  in  iiis  mind  to  hold  as 
naught  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  if  it  did  not  concur  with  his  own,  and 
remove  Mr,  Stanton  at  all  hazards,  and  as  I  charge  it  upon  him  hei-e,  as  a 
fact  no  man  can  doubt,  with  the  full  knowledge  also  that  the  Senate  under- 
stood that  he  was  acting  under  the  provisions  of  the  tenure-of-office  act, 
still  thus  deceiving  them,  when  called  to  answer  for  a  violation  of  that 
act  in  his  solemn  answer  he  makes  the  shameless  avowal  that  he  did 
transmit  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a  "  message  wherein  he  made 
known  the  orders  aforesaid  and  the  reasons  which  induced  the  same,  so  far 
as  the  respondent  then  considered  it  material  and  necessary  that  tiie  same 
should  be  set  forth."  True  it  is,  there  is  not  one  word,  one  letter,  one  implication  iu 
that  message  that  the  President  was  not  acting  in  good  faith  under  the  tenure- 
of-office  act  and  desiring  the  Senate  to  do  the  same.  So  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  with  a  determination  to  assert  at  all  hazards  the  tremendous  })ower 
of  removal  of  every  officer,  without  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  did  not  deem  it 
"  material  or  necessary  "  that  the  Senate  should  know  that  he  had  suspended  Mr. 
Stanton  indefinitely  against  the  provisions  of  the  tenure-of-office  act,  with  full 
intent  at  all  hazards  to  remove  him,  and  that  the  solenni  dtdibenitions  of  the 
Senate,  which  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  then  calling  upon  them  to 
make  in  a  matter  of  the  highest  governmental  concern,  were  only  to  be  of  use 
in  case  they  suited  his  pur|)0S('S  ;  that  it  was  not  "material  or  necessary  "  for  the 
Senate  to  know  that  its  high  decision  was  futile  and  useless;  that  the  President 
was  playing  fast  and  loose  with  this  branch  of  the  government,  which  was  never 
before  done  save  by  himself. 

If  Andrew  Johnson  never  committed  any  other  oifence— if  we  knew  nothing 
of  him  save  from  this  avowal — we  should  have  a  full  picture  of  his  mind  and 
heart,  painted  in  colors  of  living  light,  so  that  no  man  will  ever  mistake  his 
mental  and  moral  lineaments  h(n-eafter. 

Instead  of  optm  and  fraidv  dealing,  as  becomes  the  head  of  a  great  govern- 
ment in  every  relation  of  life,  and  especially  needfid  from  the  highest  executive 
officer  of  the  gov(!rnment  to  th(!  higliest  legislative  branch  thereof;  instead  of  a 
manly,  straightforward  bearing,  claiming  ojx'niy  and  distinctly  the  rights  which 
lie  believed  pertained  to  his  high  otl3.ce,  and  yielding  to  the  other  branches, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  105 

fairly  and  Justly,  those  whicli  bclono:  to  them,  we  find  him,  upon  his  own  written 
coutessit)n,  keepino^  back  his  claims  of  power,  concealing  his  motives,  covering 
his  purposes,  attempting  by  indirection  and  subterfuge  to  do  that  as  the  ruler  of 
a  great  nation  which,  if  it  be  done  at  all,  should  have  been  done  boldly,  in  the 
face  of  day  ;  and  upon  this  position  he  must  stand  before  the  Senate  and  the 
country  if  they  believe  his  answer,  which  I  do  not,  that  he  had  at  that  time 
these  intents  and  purposes  in  his  mind,  and  they  are  not  the  subterfuge  anrl 
evasi.sn  and  after-thought  which  a  criminal  brought  to  bay  makes  to  escape  the 
consequences  of  his  acts. 

Senators!  he  asked  you  for  time  in  which  to  make  his  answer.  You  gave 
him  ten  days,  and  this  is  the  answer  he  makes!  If  he  could  do  this  in  ten  days, 
what  should  we  have  had  if  you  had  given  him  forty  1  You  shew  him  a  mercy 
in  not  extending  the  time  for  answer. 

Passing  from  further  consideration  of  the  legality  of  the  action  of  the  respond- 
ent in  removing  Mr.  Stanton  from  office  in  the  manner  and  form  and  with  the 
intent  and  purpose  with  which  it  has  been  done,  let  us  now  examine  the 
appointment  of  Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  of  the  United  States 
army,  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim. 

I  assume  that  it  is  not  denied  in  any  quarter  that  this  ad  interim  appointment 
to  this  office  is  the  mere  creature  of  law,  and  if  justified  at  all,  is  to  be  so  under 
some  act  of  Congress.  Indeed,  the  respondent  in  his  answer  says  that  in  the 
appointment  of  General  Grant  ad  interiyn  he  acted  under  the  act  of  February 
13,  1795,  and  subject  to  its  limitations.  By  the  act  of  August  7,  17S9,  creating 
the  Department  of  War,  (1st  Statutes  at  Large,  page  49,)  "in  case  of  any 
viicancy"  no  provision  is  made  for  any  appointment  of  au  acting  or  ad  interim 
Secretary.  In  that  case  the  records  and  papers  are  to  be  turned  over  for  safe 
keeping  to  the  custody  of  the  chief  clerk.  This  apparent  omission  to  provide 
for  an  executive  emergency  was  attempted  to  be  remedied  by  Congress  by  the 
act  of  ^lay  8,  1792,  (1st  Statutes,  281,)  which  provides  "that  in  case  of  the  death, 
absence  from  the  seat  of  government,  or  sickness  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  or  of  the;  Secretary  of  the  War  Department,  or  of  any 
officer  of  either  of  the  said  depjirtments  whose  appointment  is  not  in  the  head 
thereof,  wlicrehy  they  cannot  i^erform  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices,  it  shall 
be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  iu  case  he  shall  think  it  neces- 
sary, to  authorize  any  person  or  persons,  at  his  discretion,  to  perform  the  duties 
of  the  said  respective  otBces  until  a  successor  be  appointed,  or  until  such  abseiice 
or  inability  by  sickness  shall  cease." 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  act  provides  for  vacancies  by  death,  absence,  or 
sickness  only,  wherehy  the  head,  of  a  department  or  any  officer  in  it  cannot  per- 
form his  duty,  but  makes  no  provision  for  vacancy  by  removal. 

Two  difficulties  were  found  iu  that  provision  of  law :  first,  that  it  provided 
only  for  certain  enumerated  vacancies ;  and  also,  it  authorized  the  President  to 
make  an  acting  appointment  of  any  person  for  any  length  of  time.  To  meet 
these  difficulties  the  act  of  13th  February,  J  795,  was  passed,  (1st  Stat,  at  Large, 
415,)  which  provides  "  in  case  of  vacancy,  whereby  the  Secretaries  or  any  officer 
in  any  oj" the  departments  cannot  perform  the  duties  of  his  office,  the  President 
may  appuint  any  person  to  perform  the  duties  for  a  period  not  exceeding  six 
months." 

Thus  the  law  stood  as  to  acting  appointments  in  all  of  the  departments,  (except 
the  Navy  and  Interior,  which  had  no  provision  for  any  person  to  act  in  place  of 
the  Secretary,)  until  the  19th  of  February,  1863,  when,  by  the  second  section 
of  an  act  approved  at  that  date,  (12th  Stat.,  646,)  it  was  "provided  that  no  person 
acting  or  assuming  to  act  as  a  civil,  military,  or  naval  officer  shall  have  any 
money  paid  to  him  as  salary  in  any  office  which  is  not  authorized  by  some  pre- 
viously existing  law."  The  state  of  the  law  upon  this  subject  at  that  point  of 
time  is  thus  :  In  case  of  death,  absence,  or  sickness,  or  of  any  vacancy  whereby 


lOG  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

a  Secretary  or  other  officer  of  the  State,  War,  or  Treasury  Department  rmdd 
not  jhcr form  the  duties  of  the  fffice.  any  person  could  be  authorized  by  the  Pres- 
ident to  perform  those  duties  for  the  space  of  six  months. 

For  the  Dop'irtments  of  the  Interior  and  the  Navy  provision  had  been  made 
for  the  appointment  of  an  Assistant  Secretary,  but  no  provision  in  case  of 
vacancy  in  his  office,  and  a  restriction  put  upon  any  officers  acting  when  not 
authorized  bylaw,  from  receiving  any  salary  whatever. 

To  meet  those  omissions  and  to  meet  the  case  of  resignation  of  any  ofHcer  of 
an  executive  department,  and  also  to  meet  what  was  found  to  be  a  defect  in 
allowing  the  President  to  appoint  anj/  person  to  those  high  offices  for  the  space 
of  six  months,  whether  such  person  had  any  acquaintance  with  the  duties  of  the 
department  or  not,  an  act  was  passed  February  20,  1863,  (12  Stat.,  p.  C56,) 
which  provides,  that  in  case  of  the  death,  resignation,  absence  from  the  seat  of 
government,  or  sickness  of  the  head  of  an  executive  department  of  the  govern- 
ment, or  of  any  officer  of  either  of  the  said  departments  whose  appointment  is 
not  in  the  head  thereof,  whcrehij  they  cannot  perfonii  the  duties  of  their  respect- 
ive offices,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  case  he 
shall  think  it  necessary,  to  authorize  the  head  of  any  other  executive  depart- 
ment or  other  officer  in  either  of  said  departments  whose  appointment  is  vested 
in  the  President,  at  his  discretion  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  said  respective 
offices  until  a  successor  be  appointed,  or  until  such  absence  or  inability  shall  cease. 
Therefore,  in  case  of  the  death,  resignation,  sickness,  or  absence  of  a  head  of  an 
Executive  department,  Avhereby  the  incumbent  could  not  perform  the  duties  of 
his  office,  the  President  might  authorize  the  head  of  another  Executive  depart- 
ment to  perform  the  duties  of  the  vacant  office,  and  in  case  of  like  disability  of 
any  officer  of  an  Executive  department  other  than  the  head,  the  President  might 
authorize  an  officer  of  the  same  department  to  perform  his  duties  for  the  space 
of  six  months. 

It  is  remarkable  that  in  all  these  statutes,  from  1789  down,  no  provision  is 
made  for  the  case  of  a  removal,  or  that  anybody  is  empowered  to  act  for  the 
removed  officer,  the  chief  clerk  being  empowered  to  take  charge  of  the  books  and 
papers  only. 

Does  not  this  series  of  acts  conclusively  demonstrate  a  legislative  construc- 
tion of  the  Constitution  that  there  could  be  no  removal  of  the  chief  of  an  exec- 
utive department  by  the  act  of  the  President  save  by  the  nomination  and  • 
appointment  of  his  successor,  if  the  Senate  were  in  session,  or  a  qiudified 
appointment  till  the  end  of  the  next  session  if  the  vacancy  happened  or  was 
made  in  recess  1 

Let  us  now  apply  this  state  of  the  law  to  the  appointment  of  Major  General 
Thomas  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  by  Executive  order.  Mr.  Stanton  had 
neither  died  nor  resigned,  Avas  not  sick  nor  absent.  If  he  had  been,  inider 
the  act  of  ]\Iarch  3.  1863,  which  repeals  all  inconsistent  acts,  the  President  was 
authorized  only  to  appoint  the  head  of  another  Executive  department  to 
fill  his  place  ad  interim.  Such  was  not  General  Thomas.  He  was  simply  an 
officer  of  the  army,  the  head  of  a  bureau  or  department  of  the  War  Department, 
and  not  eligible  under  the  law  to  be  appointed.  So  that  his  appointment  was 
an  illegal  and  void  act. 

There  have  been  two  cases  o?  ad  interim  appointments  which  illustrate  and 
confii-m  this  position  ;  the  one  was  the  appointment  of  Lieutenant  General  Scott 
Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  the  other  the  appointment  of  General  Grant 
ad  interim  upon  the  suspension  of  I^Ir.  Stanton,  in  August  last. 

The  appointment  of  General  Scott  Avas  legal  because  that  was  done  before  the 
restraining  act  of  Mai-ch  2,  1863,  which  requires  the  detail  of  the  head  of  another 
department  to  act    ad  interitfi. 

'Lhe  appointment  of  General  Grant  to  take  the  place  of  Mr.  Stanton  during 
his  suspension  would  have  been  illegal  under  the  acts  I  have  cited,  he  being 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT-  107 

an  officer  of  the  army  and  not  the  head  of  a  department,  if  it  had  not  been 
authorized  by  the  ^d  section  of  the  "  tenure-of-civil-office  act,"  wliicli  pro- 
vides that  in  case  of  suspension,  and  no  other,  the  President  may  designate 
"some  suitable  person  to  perform  temporarily  the  duties  of  sucli  office  until  the 
next  meeting-  of  the  Senate."  Now,  General  Grant  was  such  "  suitable  person," 
and  was  properly  enough  appointed  under  that  ju'ovision. 

This  answers  one  ground  of  the  defence  which  is  taken  by  the  President  that 
he  did  vot  suspend  Mr.  Stanton  under  the  "  tennre-of-office  act,"  but  by  his 
general  power  of  suspension  and  removal  of  an  officer.  If  the  President  did 
not  suspend  Stanton  under  the  tenure-of-office  act,  bi^^causc  he  deemed  it  uncon- 
stitutional and  void,  Oivn  there  was  no  law  authorizing  him  to  appoint  Gen- 
eral Grant,  and  that  appointment  was  unauthorized  by  law  and  a  violation  of 
his  oath  of  office. 

But  the  tenure-of-civil-office  bill  by  its  express  terms  forbids  any  employ- 
ment, authorizati(^n,  or  appointment  of  any  person  in  civil  office  where  the 
appointment  is  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  while  the 
Senate  is  in  session.  If  this  act  is  constitutional,  i.  e.,if  it  is  not  so  far  in  con- 
flict with  the  paramount  law  of  the  larid  as  to  be  inoperative  and  void,  then  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  appointment  of  General  Thomas  are  both  in 
direct  violation  of  it,  and  are  declared  by  it  to  be  high  misdemeanors. 

The  intent  with  which  the  President  has  done  this  is  not  doubtful,  nor  are 
we  obliged  to  rely  upon  the  principle  of  law  that  a  man  must  be  held  to  intend 
the  legal  consequences  of  all  his  acts. 

The  President  admits  that  he  intended  to  set  aside  the  tenure-of-office  act, 
and  thus  contravene  the  Constitution,  if  that  law  was  unconstitutional. 

Having  shown  that  the  President  wilfully  violated  an  act  of  Congress,  with- 
out jiistitication,  both  in  the  removal  of  Stanton  and  the  appointment  of 
Thomas,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  wrongfully  the  possession  of  the  War 
Office  by  force,  if  need  be,  and  certainly  by  threats  and  intimidations,  for  the 
purpose  of  controlling  its  appropriations  through  its  ad  interim  chief,  who 
shall  say  that  Andrew  Johnson  is  not  guilty  of  the  high  crime  and  misde- 
meanors charged  against  him  in  the  first  eight  articles  ] 

The  respondent  makes  ansAver  to  this  view,  that  the  President,  believing  this 
civil  tenure  law  to  be  unconstitutional;  had  a  right  to  violate  it,  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  the  matter  before  the  Supreme  Court  for  its  adjudication. 

We  are  obliged,  in  limine,  to  ask  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  this  consider- 
ation, that  they  may  take  it  with  them  as  our  case  goes  forward. 

We  claim  that  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  any  law  of  Congress  is, 
upon  this  trial,  a  totally  irrelevant  one;  because  all  the  power  or  right  in  the 
President  to  judge  upon  any  supposed  conflict  of  an  act  of  Congress  with  the 
paramount  law  of  the  Constitution  is  exhausted  when  he  has  examined  a  bill 
sent  him  and  returned  it  with  his  objections.  If  then  passed  over  his  veto  it 
becomes  as  valid  as  if  in  fact  signed  by  him. 

The  Constitution  has  provided  three  methods,  all  equally  potent,  by  which  a 
bill  brought  into  either  house  may  become  a  law  : 

1st.  By  passage  by  vote  of  both  houses,  in  due  form,  with  the  President's 
signature ; 

2d,  By  passage  by  vote  of  both  houses,  in  due  form,  and  the  President's 
neglect  to  return  it  within  ten  days  witli  his  objections  ; 

3d.  By  passage  by  vote  of  both  houses,  in  due  form,  a  veto  by  the  President, 
a  reconsideration  by  both  houses,  and  a  passage  by  two-thirds  votes. 

The  Constitution  substitutes  this  reconsideiation  and  passage  as  an  equivalent 
to  the  President's  signature.  After  that,  he  and  all  other  oflicers  must  execute 
the  law,  whether  in  fact  constitutional  or  not. 

For  the  President  to  refuse  to  execute  a  law  duly  passed,  because  he  thought 


108  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

it  unconstitutional,  after  he  had  vetoed  it  for  that  reason,  would,  in  eflPect,  be 
for  liim  to  execute  his  veto  and  leave  the  law  unexecuted. 

It  may  be  said  he  may  do  this  at  his  peril.  True ;  but  that  peril  is,  to  be 
impeached  for  violatinji-  his  oath  of  office,  as  is  now  being  done. 

If,  indeed,  laws  duly  passed  by  Congress  affecting  gi'uorally  the  welfare  of 
any  considerable  portion  of  the  people  had  been  commonly,  or  as  a  usage 
declared  by  the  Supreme  Court  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  inoperative, 
there  mig'ht  seem  to  be  some  palliation  if  not  justification  to  the  Executive  to 
refuse  to  execute  a  law  in  order  to  have  its  constitutionality  tested  by  the  court. 

It  is  possible  to  conceive  of  so  flagrant  a  case  of  unconstitutionality  as  to  be 
such  shadow  of  justification  to  the  Executive,  provided  one  at  the  same  time  • 
conceives  an  equally  flagrant  case  of  stupidity,  ignorance,  and  imbecility,  or 
worse,  in  the  representatives  of  the  people  and  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  ;  but  both  conceptions  are  so  rarely  possible  and  absurd  as  not  to  furnish 
a  ground  of  governmental  action. 

How  stands  the  fact?  Has  the  Supreme  Court  so  frequently  declared  the 
laws  of  Congress  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  as  to  afford  the  President  just 
ground  for  belief,  or  hope  even,  that  the  court  will  do  so  in  a  given  instance  ? 
I  think  I  may  safely  assert  as  a  legal  fact,  that  since  the  first  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  till  the  day  of  this  arraignment  no  law  passed  by  Congress 
affecting  the  general  welfare  has  ever,  by  the  judgment  of  that  court,  been  set 
aside  or  held  for  naught  because  of  unconstitutionality  as  the  ground-worK.  oi 
its  decision. 

In  three  cases  only  has  the  judgment  of  that  court  been  influenced  by  the 
supposed  conflict  between  the  law  and  the  Constitution,  and  they  were  cases 
affecting  the  court  itself  and  its  own  duties,  and  where  the  law  seemed  to  inter- 
fere with  its  own  prerogatives. 

Touching  privileges  and  prerogatives  have  been  the  shipwreck  of  many  a 
wholesome  law.  It  is  the  spre  spot,  the  sensitive  nerve  of  all  tribunals,  parlia- 
mentary or  judicial. 

The  first  case  questioning  the  validity  of  a  law  of  Congress  is  Ilayburn's, 
(2  Dallas,  409,)  Avhere  the  court  decided  upon  the  unconstitutionality  of 
the  act  of  March  23,  1792,  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  1,  p.  244,  which  conferred 
upon  the  court  the  power  to  decide  upon  and  grant  certificates  of  invalid  peu- 
^sions.  The  court  held  that  such  power  could  not  be  confen-ed  upon  the  court 
as  an  original  jurisdiction,  the  court  receiving  all  its  original  jurisdiction  from 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution.  This  decision  would  be  nearly  unintelligible 
were  it  not  explained  in  a  note  to  the  case  in  United  States  vs.  Fi-rn-ira,  (13 
Howard,  p.  52,)  reporting  United  States  vs.  Todd,  decided  February  17,  1794. 

We  learn,  however,  from  both  cases  the  cause  of  this  unintelligibility  of  the 
decision  in  Ilayburn's  case.  When  the  same  question  came  up  at  the  circuit 
court  in  New  York,  the  judges  being  of  opinion  that  the  law  could  not  be 
executed  by  them  as  judges,  because  it  was  miconstitntional,  yet  determined  to 
obey  it  until  the  case  could  be  adjudicated  by  th(!  whole  court.  They  there- 
fore, not  to  violate  the  law,  did  execute  it  as  commissioners  luitil  it  was  repealed, 
which  was  done  the  next  year. 

The  judges  on  the  circuit  in  Pennsylvania  all  united  in  a  letter  to  the  Execu- 
tive, most  humbly  apologizing,  with  great  regret,  that  their  convictions  of  duty 
did  not  permit  them  to  execute  the  law  according  to  its  t(!rms,  and  took  special 
care  that  this  letter  should  accompany  their  decision,  so  that  they  might  not  be 
misunderstood. 

Both  examples  it  would  have  been  w(dl  f  )r  this  respondent  to  have  followed 
before  he  undertook  to  set  himstdf  to  violate  an  act  of  Congress. 

The  next  case  where  the  court  decided  upon  any  conllict  between  the  Consti- 
tution and  the  law  is  Gordon  vs.  United  States,  tried  in  April,  1865,  seventy- 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PEESIDENT.  109 

one   years    afterwards,   two    justices    dissenting',   without   any    opinion    being 
delivered  by  the  court. 

The  court  here  dismiesed  an  appeal  from  the  Conrt  of  Claims,  alleging  that, 
under  the  Constitution,  no  appellate  jurisdiction  could  be  exercised  over  the 
Court  of  Claims  under  an  act  of  Congress  which  gave  revisory  power  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  over  a  decision  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  This 
decision  is  little  satisfactory,  as  it  is  wholly  without  argument  or  authority  cited. 

The  next  case  is  ex  j^arfe  Gurland,  (4  Wallace,  333,)  known  as  the  Attorney's 
Oath  case— where  the  court  decided  that  an  attorney  was  not  an  officer  of  the 
United  States,  and  therefore  might  practice  befoie  that  court  without  taking  the 
test  oath. 

The  reasoning  of  the  court  in  that  case  would  throw  doubt  on  the  constitu- 
tionality of  (he  law  of  Congress,  but  the  decision  of  the  invalidity  of  the  law 
was  not  necessary  to  the  decision  of  the  case,  which  did  not  command  a  unan- 
imity in  the  court,  as  it  certainly  did  not  the  assent  of  the  bar. 

Yet  in  this  case  it  will  be  observed  that  the  court  made  a  rule" requiring  the 
oath  to  be  administered  to  the  attorneys  in  obedience  of  the  law  until  it  came 
before  them  in  a  cause  duly  brought  up  for  decision.  T/ie  Suprtme  Court 
obeyed  the  law  up  to  the  time  it  was  set  aside.  They  did  not  violate  it  to  make 
a  test  case. 

Here  is  another  example  to  this  respondent,  as  to  his  duty  in  the  case,  which 
he  will  wish  he  had  followed,  I  may  venture  to  say,  when  he  hears  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Senate  upon  the  impeachment  now  pending. 

There  are  several  other  cases  wherein  the  validity  of  acts  of  Congress  have 
been  discussed  before  the  Supreme  Court,  but  none  where  the  decision  has  turnea 
on  that  point. 

In  Marbury  vs.  Madison,  (1  Cranch,  137,)  Chief  Justice  Marshall  dismissed 
the  case  for  want  of  jurisdiction,  but  took  opportunity  to  deliver  a  chiding  opinion 
against  the  administration  of  Jefferson  before  hi'  did  so. 

In  the  Dred  Scott  case,  so  familiar  to  the  public,  the  court  decided  it  had 
no  juii-dictiou,  but  gave  the  government  and  the  people  a  lecture  upon  theii: 
political  duties. 

In  the  case  of  Fisher  vs.  Blight,  (2  Cranch,  358,)  the  constitutionality  of  a  law 
was  very  much  discussed,  but  was  held  valid  by  the  decision  of  the  court. 

In  United  States  i;*.  Coombs,  (12  Peters,  72,)  although  the  power  to  declare  a 
law  of  Congress  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  was  claimed  in  the  opinion  of 
the  court  arguendo,  yet  the  law  itself  was  sustained. 

The  case  of  Pollard  vs.  Hagan,  (3  Howard,  212,)  and  the  two  cases,  Goodtitle 
VH.  Kibbe,  (9  Howard,  271  ;)  Hallett  vs.  Beebe,  (13  Howard,  25,)  growing  out  of 
the  same  controversy,  have  been  thought  to  impugn  the  validity  of  two  private 
acts  of  Congress,  but  a" careful  examination  will  show  that  it  was  the  operation 
and  not  the  validity  of  the  acts  which  came  in  question  and  made  the  basis  of 
the  decision. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Supreme  Court,  in  three  instances  only,  have 
apparently  by  its  decision  impugned  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Congress  because 
of  a  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  and  in  each  case  a  question  of  the  rights 
and  prerogatives  of  the  court  or  its  otficers  has  been  in  controversy. 

The  cases  where  the  constitutionality  of  an  act  of  Congress  has  been  doubted 
in  the  obiter  dicta  of  the  court,  but  were  not  the  basis  of  decisiont  are  open  to 
other  criticisms. 

In  Marbury  vs.  Madison,  Chief  Justice  Marshall  had  just  been  serving  as 
Secretary  of  State  in  an  opposing  administration  to  the  one  whose  acts  he  was 
trying  to  overturn  as  Chief  Justice. 

In  the  Dred  Scott  case,  Chief  Justice  Taney — selected  by  General  Jackson 
to  remove  the  deposits,  because  his  bitter  partisanship  would  carry  him  through 
where  Duaue  halted  and  was  removed — delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court,  whose 


110  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

obiter  dicta  fanned  the  flame  of  dissension  which  led  to  the  civil  war  throujrh 
whicli  the  people  have  just  passed,  and  against  that  opinion  the  judgment  of 
the  country  has  long  been  recorded. 

When  ex  2)artc  Garland  was  decided,  the  country  was  just  emerging  from  a 
conflict  of  arms,  the  passions  and  excitement  of  which  had  fcmnd  tlieir  way 
npon  the  bench,  and  some  of  the  judges,  just  coming  from  other  service  of 
the  government  and  from  the  bar,  brought  v/ith  them  opinions — 13nt  I  forbear. 
I  am  treading  on  dangerous  ground.  Time  has  not  yet  laid  its  softening  and 
correcting  hand  long  enough  upon  this  decision  to  allow  me  further  to  comment 
npon  it  in  this  presence. 

Mr.  President  and  Senators,  can  it  be  said  that  the  possible  doubts  thrown  on 
three  or  four  acts  of  Congress,  as  to  their  constitutionality,  during  a  judicial 
experience  of  seventy-five  years — hardly  one  to  a  generation — is  a  sufficient 
Avarrant  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  set  aside  and  violate  any  act 
of  Congress  whatever,  upon  the  plea  that  he  believed  the  Supreme  Court  would 
hold  it  unconstitutional  when  a  case  involving  the  question  should  come  before 
it,  and  especially  one  much  discussed  on  its  passage,  to  M^hich  the  whole  mind 
of  the  country  was  turned  during  the  progress  of  the  discussion,  upon  which 
he  had  argued  with  all  his  power  his  constitutional  objections,  and  which,  after 
careful  reconsideration,  had  been  passed  over  his  veto. 

Indeed,  will  you  hear  an  argument  as  a  Senate  of  the  United  States,  a  majori- 
ity  of  whom  voted  for  that  very  bill,  upon  its  constitutionality  in  the  trial  of  an 
executive  officer  for  wilfully  violating  it  before  it  had  been  doubted  by  any 
court  ? 

Bearing  upon  this  question,  however,  it  may  be  said  that  the  President 
removed  j\Ir.  Stunton  for  the  very  purpose  of  testing  the  constitutionality  of 
this  law  before  the  courts,  and  the  question  is  asked.  Will  you  condemn  him  as 
for  a  crime  for  so  doing?  If  this  pka  were  a  true  one  it  ought  not  to  avail; 
but  it  is  a  subterfuge.  We  shall  show  you  that  he  has  taken  no  step  to  sub- 
mit the  question  to  any  court,  although  more  than  a  year  has  elapsed  since  the 
passage  of  the  act. 

On  the  contrary,  the  President  has  recognized  its  validity  and  acted  upon  it  in 
every  department  of  the  government,  save  in  the  War  Department,  ami  there 
except  in  regard  to  the  head  thereof  solely.  We  shall  shoAv  you  he  long  ago 
caused  all  the  forms  of  comuiissiims  and  official  bonds  of  all  the  civil  officers  of 
the  government  to  be  altered  to  conform  to  its  i-equirement.  Indeed,  tiie  fact 
will  not  be  denied — nay,  in  the  very  case  of  Mr.  Stanton,  he  suspended  him  under 
its  provisions,  and  asked  this  very  Senate,  before  Avhom  he  is  now  being  tried 
for  its  violation,  to  pass  upon  the  sufficiency  of  liis  reasons  for  acting  under  it  in 
so  doing  according  to  its  terms;  yet,  rendered  reckless  and  mad  by  th;;  patience 
of  Congress  under  his  usurpation  of  other  powers,  and  his  disregard  of  other 
laws,  he  boldly  avows  in  his  letter  to  the  general  of  the  army  that  he  intends 
to  disregard  its  provisions,  and  summons  the  commander  of  the  troops  of  this 
department  to  seduce  him  from  his  duty  so  as  to  be  able  to  command,  in  viola- 
tion of  another  act  of  Congress,  sufficient  military  power  to  enforce  his  unwar- 
ranted decrees. 

The  President  knew,  or  ought  to  have  known  ;  his  official  adviser,  who  now 
appears  as  his  counsel,  could,  and  did  tell  him,  doiibtless,  that  he  alone,  as 
Attorney  General,  could  file  an  iidurmatioii  in  the  nature  of  a  </wo  warranto  to 
determine  this  question  of  the  validity  of  tlnj  law. 

Mr.  Stanton,  if  ejected  from  otlice,  was  without  remedy,  because  a  series  of 
decisions  has  settled  the  law  to  bt;  that  an  ejected  olHccr  can  not  reinstate  him- 
self either  by  ywo  warranto,  nianilainus,  or  other  appropriate  remedy  in  the 
courts. 

If  tlie  President  had  really  desired  solely  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the 
law  or  his  legal  right  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton,  instead  of  his  defiant  message  to 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  Ill 

the  Senate  of  the  Sls^t  of  February,  informing  them  of  the  removal,  but  not 
suggesting  this  purpose  which  is  thus  shown  to  be  an  aiterthougiit,  he  wouhl 
have  said,  in  substance:  "Gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  in  order  to  test  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  law  entitled  'An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil 
offices,'  which  I  verily  believe  to  be  unconstitutional  and  void,  I  have  issued  an 
order  of  removal  of  E.  M.  Stanton  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  War.  I  felt  myself  constraifted  to  make  this  removal  lest  Mr.  Sfanton 
should  answer  the  information  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  warranto,  which  I  intend 
the  Attorney  General  shall  iile  at  an  early  day,  by  saying  tliat  he  holds  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  War  by  the  appointment  and  authority  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
which  has  never  been  revoked.  Anxious  thatthere  shall  be  no  collision  or  dis- 
agreement between  the  several  departments  of  the  government  and  the  Execu- 
tive, I  lay  before  the  Senate  this  message,  that  the  reasons  for  my  action,  as 
well  as  the  action  itself,  for  the  purpose  indicated,  may  meet  your  concurrence." 
Had  the.  Senate  received  such  a  message,  the  representatives  of  the  people 
might  never  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  impeach  the  President  for  sucli  an 
act  to  insure  the  safety  of  the  country,  even  if  they  had  denied  the  accuracy 
of  his  legal  positions. 

On  the  contrary,  he  issued  a  letter  of  removal,  peremptory  in  form,  intended 
to  be  so  in  effect,  ordered  an  officer  of  the  army,  Lorenzo  Thomas,  to  take  pos- 
session of  the  office  and  eject  the  incumbent,  which  he  claimed  he  would  do  by 
force,  even  at  the  risk  of  inaugurating  insurrection,  civil  commotion  and  war. 

Whatever  may  be  the  decision  of  the  legal  question  involved  when  the  case 
comes  before  the  final  judicial  tribunal,  who  shall  say  that  such  conduct  of  the 
Executive  under  the  circumstances,  and  in  the  light  of  the  history  of  current 
events  and  his  concomitant  action,  is  not  in  Andrew  Johnson  a  high  crime  and 
misdemeanor?  Imagine,  if  it  were  possible,  the  consequence  of  a  decision  by 
the  Senate  in  the  negative — a  verdict  of  not  guilty  upon  this  proposition. 

A  law  is  deliberately  passed  with  all  the  form  of  legislative  procedure,  is  pre- 
sented to  the  President  for  his  signature,  is  returned  by  him  to  Congress  with  his 
objections,  is  thereupon  reconsidered,  and  by  a  yea  and  nay  vote  of  three-quar- 
ters of  the  representatives  of  the  people  in  the  popular  branch,  and  three-fourths 
of  the  senators  representing  the  States  in  the  higher  branch,  is  passed  again, 
notwithstanding  the  veto;  is  acquiesced  in  by  the  President,  by  all  departments 
of  the  government  conforming  thereto  for  quite  a  year,  no  court  having  doubted 
its  validity.  Now  its  provisions  are  wilfully  and  designedly  violated  by  the 
President  with  intent  to  usurp  to  himsi  If  the  very  powers  which  the  law  was 
designed  to  limit,  for  the  purpose  of  displacing  a  meritorious  officer  whom  the 
Senate  just  before  had  determined  ought  not  and  should  not  be  removed;  for 
which  high-handed  act  the  President  is  impeached  in  the  name  of  all  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  by  three-fourths  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and 
presented  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate,  and  by  the  same  Senate  that  passed  the  law, 
nay,  more,  by  thevery  senators  who,  when  the  proceeding  came  to  their  knowledge, 
after  a  redeliberation  of  many  hours,  solemnly  declared  the  act  unlawful  and  in 
violation  of  the  Constitution  ;  that  act  of  usurpation  is  declared  not.  to  be  a 
high  misdemeanor  in  office  by  their  solemn  verdict  of  not  guilty  upon  their 
oaths. 

Would  not  such  a  judgment  be  a  conscious  self-abnegation  of  the  intelligent 
capacity  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  in  Congress  assembled  to  frame 
laws  for  their  guidance  in  accordance  with  the  principles  and  terms  of  their 
Constitution  and  frame  of  their  government  ? 

Would  it  not  be  a  notification — an  invitation  rather — standing  to  all  time  to 
any  bold,  bad,  aspiring  man  to  seize  the  liberties  of  the  people  which  they  had 
shown  themselves  incapable  of  maintaining  or  defending,  and  playing  the  role 
of  a  Ctesar  or  Napoleon  here  to  establish  a  despotism,  while  this  the  last  and 
greatest  experiment  of  freedom  and  equality  of  right  in  the  people,  following 


112  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  long  line  of  buried  republics,  sinks  to  its  tomb  under  the  blows  of  usurped 
power  from  which  free  representative  government  shall  arise  to  the  light  of  a 
morn  of  resurrection  never  more,  never  more  forever  / 

Article  ninth  charges  that  Mnjor  General  Emory  being  in  command  of  the 
military  de])artment  of  Washington,  the  President  called  him  before  him  and 
instructed  him  that  the  act  of  March  2,  1867,  which  provides  that  all  orders 
from  the  President  shall  be  issued  through  the  General  of  the  army,  was  uncon- 
stitutional and  inconsistent  with  his  commission,  with  intent  to  induce  Emory 
to  take  orders  directly  from  himself,  and  thus  hinder  the  execution  of  the  civil 
tenure  act  and  to  prevent  Mr.  Stanton  from  holding  his  office  of  Secretary  of 
War. 

If  the  transaction  set  forth  in  this  article  stood  alone  we  might  well  admit 
that  doubts  might  arise  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  proof.  But  the  surroundings 
are  so  pointed  and  significant  as  to  leave  no  doubt  on  the  mind  of  an  impartial 
man  as  to  the  intents  and  purposes  of  the  President.  No  one  would  say  that 
the  President  might  not  properly  send  to  the  commander  of  this  department  to 
make  inquiry  as  to  the  disposition  of  his  forces,  but  the  question  itj  with  what 
intent  and  purpose  did  the  President  send  for  General  Emory  at  the  time  he  did? 
Time,  here,  is  an  important  element  of  the  act. 

Congress  had  passed  an  act  in  March,  1867,  restraining  the  President  from 
issuing-  military  orders  save  through  the  General  of  the  army.  The  President 
had  protested  against  that  act.  On  the  12th  of  August,  he  had  attempted  to 
get  possession  of  the  War  Office  by  the  removal  of  the  incumbent,  but  could 
only  do  so  by  appointing  the  General  of  the  army  thereto.  Failing  in  his 
attempt  to  get  full  possession  of  the  office  through  the  Senate,  he  had  deter- 
mined, as  he  admits,  to  remove  Stanton  at  all  hazards,  and  endeavored  to 
prevail  on  the  General  to  aid  him  in  so  doing.  He  declines.  For  that,  the 
respondent  quarrels  with  him,  denounces  him  in  the  newspapers,  and  accuses 
him  of  bad  futli  and  untruthfulness.  Thereupon,  asserting  his  prerogatives  as 
Commander-in-chief,  he  creates  a  new  military  department  of  the  Athmtic.  He 
attempts  to  bribe  Lieutenant  General  Sherman  to  take  command  of  it,  by  pro- 
motion to  the  rank  of  general  by  brevet,  trusting  that  his  military  services  would 
compel  the  Senate  to  confirm  him. 

If  the  respondent  can  get  a  general  by  brevet  appointed,  he  can  then  by  sim- 
ple order  put  him  on  duty  according  to  his  brevet  rank  and  thus  have  a  General 
of  the  army  in  command  at  Washington,  through  whom  he  Ciin  transmit  his 
orders  and  comply  with  the  act  wliicli  he  did  not  dare  transgress,  as  lie  had 
approved  it,  and  get  rid  of  the  hated  General  Grant.  Sherman  spurned  the  bribe. 
The  respondent,  not  discouraged,  appointed  ]\laj<)r  General  George  H.  Thomas 
to  the  same  brevet  rank,  but  Thomas  declined. 

What  stimulated  the  ardor  of  the  President  just  at  that  time,  almost  three 
years  after  the  war  closed,  but  just  after  the  Senate  bad  reinstated  Stanton,  to 
reward  military  service  by  the  appointnient  of  generals  by  brevet  ?  Why  did 
his  zeal  of  promotion  take  that  form  and  no  other  ?  There  were  many  other 
meritorious  ofiicers  of  lower  rank  desirous  of  promotion.  The  purpose  is  evident 
to  every  thinking  mind.  He  hjxd  determined  to  set  aside  Grant,  with  whom  he 
had  quarrelled,  either  by  force  or  fraud,  either  in  conformity  witli  or  in  spite  of 
the  act  of  Congress,  and  control  the  military  power  of  the  country.  On  the 
21st  of  February  (for  all  these  events  cluster  nearly  about  the  same  ])oint  of 
time)  he  appoints  Lorenzo  Thomas  Secretary  of  War  and  orders  Stanton  out  of 
the  office  ;  Stanton  refuses  to  go  ;  Thomas  is  about  the  streets  declaring  that  he 
will  put  liim  out  by  force,  "kick  him  out" — he  lias  cauglit   his   master's  wonl. 

On  the  evening  of  the  2 1st  a  resolution  looking  to  impeachment  is  offered  in 
the  House. 

The  President, on  the  morning  of  the  22d,  "as  early  as  practicable,"  is  seized 
with  a  sudden  desire   to  know  how  many  troops  there  were  in  Washington. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  113 

What  for,  just  tlion  ?  Was  that  all  he  wanted  to  know  ?  If  so,  Ins  Adjutant 
General  could  have  given  him  the  official  morning  report,  which  would  have 
shown  the  condition  and  station  of  every  man.  But  that  was  not  all.  He 
directs  the  commander  of  tlie  department  to  come  as  early  as  practicable.  Why 
this  haste  to  .learn  the  number  of  troops  ?  Observe,  the  order  does  not  go 
through  General  Grant,  as  by  law  it  ought  to  have  done.  General  Emory  not 
knowing  what  is  wanted,  of  course  obeyed  the  order  as  soon  as  possible.  The 
President  asked  him  if  he  remembered  the  conversation  Avhich  he  had  with  him 
when  he  first  took  command  of  the  department  as  to  the  strength  of  the  garrison  of 
Washington,  nnd  the  general  disposition  of  troops  in  the  department.  Emory 
replied  that  "  he  did  distinctly  ;"  that  was  last  September.  Then,  after  explain- 
ing to  him  fully  as  to  all  the  changes,  the  President  asked  for  recent  changes  of 
troops.  Emory  denied  they  could  have  been  made  without  the  order  going 
through  him,  and  then,  with  soldierly  frankness,  (as  he  evidently  suspected  what 
the  President  was  after,)  said  by  law  no  order  could  come  to  him  save 
through  the  General  of  the  army,  and  that  had  been  approved  by  the  President 
and  promulgated  in  a  General  Order,  No.  17.  The  President  wished  to  see  it. 
It  was  produced.  General  Emory  says,  "  Mr.  President,  I  will  take  it  as  a 
great  favor  if  you  will  permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  this  order  or  act." 
Why  a  favor  to  Emory  ?  Because  he  feared  that  he  was  to  be  called  upon  by 
the  President  to  do  something  in  contravention  of  that  law.  The  President 
read  it  and  said,  "  This  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  makes  me  Commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy,  or  with 
the  language  of  your  commission."  Emory  then  said,  "  That  is  not  a  matter 
for  the  officers  to  determine.  There  was  the  order  sent  to  us  approved  by  him, 
and  we  were  all  governed  by  that  order." 

He  said,  "Am  I  to  understand,  then,  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
cannot  give  an  order  but  through  General  Grant?"  General  Emory  then  made 
the  President  a  short  speech,  telling  him  that  the  officers  of  the  army  had  been 
consulting  lawyers  on  the  subject,  Reverdy  Johnson  and  Robert  J.  Walker,  ann 
were  advised  they  were  bound  to  obey  that  order.  Said  he,  "  I  think  it  right 
to  tell  you  the  army  are  a  unit  on  this  subject."  After  a  short  pause,  "  seeiim;- 
there  was  nothing  more  to  say,"  General  Emory  leit.  What  made  all  the  offi- 
cers consult  lawyers  about  obeying  a  law  of  the  United  States  ?  What  influ- 
ence had  been  at  work  with  them  ?  The  course  of  the  President.  In  his  mes- 
sage to  Congress  in  December  he  had  declared  that  the  time  might  come  when 
he  would  resist  a  law  of  Congress  by  force.  How  could  General  Emory  tell 
that  in  the  judgment  of  the  President  that  time  had  not  come,  and  hence  was 
anxious  to  assure  the  President  that  he  could  not  oppose  the  law  ? 

In  his  answer  to  the  first  article  he  asserts  that  he  had  fully  come  to  the  con- 
clusion to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  at  all  events,  notwithstanding  the  law  and  the 
action  of  the  Senate;  in  other  words,  he  intended  to  make,  and  did  make,  execu- 
tive resistance  to  the  law  duly  enacted.  The  conseq^uences  of  such  resistance 
he  has  told  us  in  his  message : 

Where  an  act  has  bceu  passed  accordinf^  to  the  forms  of  the  Constitution  by  the  supreme 
legislative  authority,  and  is  regularly  enrolled  among  the  public  statutes  of  the  country, 
executive  resistance  to  it,  especially  in  times  of  high  party  excitement,  would  be  likely  to 
produce  violent  collision  betvs'een  the  respective  adherents  of  tiie  two  branches  of  the  govern- 
ment. This  would  be  simply  civil  war,  and  civil  war  must  be  resorted  to  only  as  the  last 
remedy  for  the  worst  evils. 

It  is  true  that  cases  may  occur  in  which  the  Executive  would  be  compelled  to  stand  on  its 
rights,  and  maintain  them,  regardless  of  all  consequences. 

He  admits,  in  substance,  that  he  told  Emory  that  the  law  was  wholly  uncon- 
stitutional, and,  in  effect,  took  away  all  his  power  as  Commander-in-chief.     Was 
8  1  P 


114  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

it  not  just  such  a  law  as  he  had  declared  he  would  resist  ?  Do  you  not  believe 
that  if  General  Emory  had  yielded  in  the  least  to  his  suggestions  the  President 
would  have  offered  him  promotion  to  bind  him  to  his  purposes,  as  he  did  Sherman 
and  Thomas  1 

Pray  remember  that  this  is  not  the  case  of  one  gentleman  conversing  with 
another  on  moot  questions  of  law;  but  it  is  the  President,  the  Commander-in- 
chief,  "  the  fountain  of  all  honor  and  source  of  all  power !  "  in  the  eye  of  a  military 
officer,  teaching  that  officer  to  disobey  a  law  which  he  himself  has  determined 
is  void,  with  the  power  to  promote  the  officer  if  he  finds  him  an  apt  pupil. 

Is  it  not  a  high  misdemeanor  for  the  President  to  assume  to  instruct  the  offi- 
cers of  the  army  that  the  laws  of  Congress  are  not  to  be  obeyed  ? 

Article  ten  alleges  that,  intending  to  set  aside  the  rightful  authority  and  pow- 
ers of  Congress,  and  to  bring  into  disgrace  and  contempt  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  and  to  destroy  confidence  in  and  to  excite  odium  against  Congress 
and  its  laws,  he,  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  made  divers 
speeches  set  out  therein,  whereby  he  brought  the  office  of  President  into  con- 
tempt, ridicule,  and  disgrace. 

To  sustain  these  charges,  there  will  be  put  in  evidence  the  short-hand  notes 
of  reporters  in  each  instance,  who  took  these  speeches,  or  examined  the  sworn 
copies  thereof,  and  one  instance  where  the  speech  was  examined  and  corrected 
by  the  private  secretary  of  the  Pi'esident  himself. 

To  the  charges  of  this  article  the  respondent  answers  that  a  convention  of 
delegates,  of  M'hom  he  does  not  say,  sat  in  Philadelphia  for  certain  political  pur- 
poses mentioned,  and  appointed  a  committee  to  wait  upon  the  respondent  as 
President  of  the  United  States:  that  they  were  received,  and  by  their  chairman, 
the  Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson,  then  and  now  a  senator  of  the  United  States, 
addressed  the  respondent  in  a  speech,  a  copy  of  which  the  respondent  believes 
from  a  substantially  correct  report,  is  made  a  part  of  the  answer  ;  that  the 
respondent  made  a  reply  to  the  address  of  the  committee.  While,  however,  he 
gives  xis  in  his  answer  a  copy  of  the  speech  made  to  him  by  Mr.  Reverdy  John- 
son, taken  from  a  newspaper,  he  wholly  omits  to  give  us  an  authorized  vex'sion 
of  his  own  speech,  about  which  Ik;  may  be  supposed  to  know  quite  as  much,  and 
thus  saved  us  some  testimony.  He  does  not  admit  that  the  extracts  from  his 
speech  in  the  article  are  correct,  nor  does  he  deny  that  they  are  so. 

In  regard  to  the  speech  at  Cleveland,  he,  again,  does  not  admit  that  the 
extracts  correctly  or  justly  present  his  speech  ;  but,  again,  he  does  not  deny 
that  it  does  so  far  as  the  same  is  set  out. 

As  to  the  speech  at  St.  Louis,  he  does  not  deny  that  he  made  it — says  only 
that  he  does  not  admit  it,  and  n;qiiires,  in  each  case,  that  the  whole  speech  shall 
be  proved.  In  that,  I  beg  leave  to  assure  him  and  the  Senate,  his  wishes  shall 
be  gratified  to  their  fullest  fruition.  The  Senate  shall  see  the  performance,  so  far 
as  is  in  our  power  to  photograph  the  scene  by  evidence,  on  each  of  these  occa- 
sions, and  shall  hear  every  material  word  that  he  said.  His  defence,  however, 
to  the  article  is  tliat  "  he  felt  himself  in  duty  bound  to  express  opinions  of  and 
concerning  the  public  character,  conduct,  views,  purposes,  motives,  and  tenden- 
cies of  all  men  engaged  in  the  public  service,  as  well  in  Congress  as  otherwise," 
"and  that  for  anything  he  may  have  said  on  either  of  these  oijcasions  he  is  jus- 
tified under  the  constitutional  right  of  freedom  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  speech, 
and  is  not  subject  to  question,  inquisition,  impeachment,  or  inculj)ation  in  any 
manner  or  form  whatsoever;"  he  denies,  however,  that  by  reason  of  any  matter 
in  said  article  or  its  specifications  alleged  he  has  said  or  done  anything  indecent 
or  unbecoming  in  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  United  States,  or  tending  to  bring 
his  high  office  into  contempt,  ridicule,  or  disgrace. 

The  issue,  then,  finally,  is  this  :  that  those  utterances  of  his,  in  the  manner 
and  from  in  which  they  are  alleged  to  have  been  made,  and  under  the  circum- 
stances and  at  the  time  they  were  made,  are  decent  and  becoming  the  President 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  115 

of  the  United  States,  and  do  not  tend  to  bring  tlie  office  into  ridicule  and  dis- 
grace. 

We  accept  the  issues.     They  are  two  : 

rirt<t.  That  he  has  the  right  to  say  what  he  did  of  Congress  in  the  exercise 
of  freedom  of  speech  ;  and,  second,  that  what  he  did  say  in  those  speeches  was 
a  higlily  gentlemanlike  and  proper  performance  in  a  citizen,  and  still  more 
becoming  in  a  President  of  the  United  States. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  graver  matter  of  the  assertion  of  the  right  to  cast 
contumely  upon  Congress ;  to  denounce  it  as  a  "  body  hanging  on  the  verge  of 
the  government ;"  "  pretending  to  be  a  Congress  when  in  fact  it  was  not  a  Con- 
gress ;"  "  a  Congress  pretending  to  be  for  the  Union  when  its  every  step  and  act 
tended  to  perpetuate  disunion,"  "and  make  a  disruption  of  the  States  inevitable;" 
"a  Congress  in  a  minority  assuming  to  exercise  power  which,  if  allowed  to  bo 
consummated,  would  result  in  despotism  and  monarchy  itself;"  "  a  Oongresa 
which  had  done  everything  to  prevent  the  union  of  the  States;"  "a  Congress 
factious  and  domineering;"  "a  radical  Congress,  which  gave  origin  to  another 
rebellion;"  "a  Congress  upon  whose  skirts  was  every  drop  of  blood  that  was 
shed  in  the  New  Orleans  riots." 

You  will  find  these  denunciations  had  a  deeper  meaning  than  mere  expressions 
of  opinion.  It  may  be  taken  as  an  axiom  in  the  affairs  of  nations  that  no  usurper 
has  ever  seized  upon  the  legislature  of  his  country  until  he  has  familiarized  the 
people  with  the  possibility  of  so  doing  by  vituperating  and  decrying  it. 
Denunciatory  attacks  upon  the  legislature  have  always  preceded,  slanderous 
abuse  of  the  individuals  composing  it  have  always  accompanied  a  seizure  by  a 
despot  of  the  legislative  power  of  a  country. 

Two  memorable  examples  in  modern  history  will  spring  to  the  recollection  of 
every  man.  Before  Cromwell  drove  out  by  the  bayonet  the  Parliament  of 
England,  he  and  his  partisans  had  denounced  it,  derided  it,  decried  it,  and 
defamed  it,  and  thus  brought  it  into  ridicule  and  contempt.  He  vilified  it  with 
the  same  name  which  it  is  a  significant  fact  the  partisans  of  Johnson,  by  a  con-- 
certed  cry,  applied  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  when  he  commenced 
his  memorable  pilgrimage  and  crusade  against  it.  It  is  a  still  more  significant 
fact  that  the  justification  made  by  Cromwell  and  by  Johnson  for  setting  aside 
the  authority  of  Parliament  and  Congress  respectively  was  precisely  the  same, 
to  wit  :  that  they  were  elected  by  part  of  the  people  only.  When  Cromwell, 
by  his  soldiers,  finally  entered  the  hall  of  Parliament  to  disperse  its  members, 
he  attempted  to  cover  the  enormity  of  his  usurpation  by  denouncing  this  man 
personally  as  a  libertine,  that  as  a  drunkard,  another  as  the  betrayer  of  the  lib- 
erties of  the  people.  Johnson  started  out  on  precisely  the  same  course,  but 
forgetting  the  parallel,  too  early  he  proclaims  this  patriot  an  assassin,  that 
statesman  a  traitor ;  threatens  to  hang  that  man  whom  the  people  delight 
to  honor,  and  breathes  out  " threatenings  and  slaughter"  against  this  man 
whose  services  in  the  cause  of  human  freedom  has  jnade  his  name  a  household 
word  wherever  the  language  is  spoken.  There  is,  however,  an  appreciable  dif- 
ference between  Cromwell  and  Johnson,  and  there  is  a  like  difference  in  the 
results  accomplished  by  each. 

When  Bonaparte  extinguished  the  legislature  of  France,  he  waited  until 
through  his  press  and  his  partisans,  and  by  his  own  denunciations,  he  brought 
its  authority  into  disgrace  and  contempt  ;  and  when,  finally,  he  drove  the  council 
of  the  nation  from  their  chamber,  like  Cromwell,  he  justified  himself  by  personal 
abuse  of  the  individuals  themselves  as  they  passed  by  him. 

That  the  attempt  of  Andrew  Johnson  to  overthrow  Congress  has  failed,  la 
because  of  the  want  of  ability  and  power,  not  of  malignity  and  will. 

We  are  too  apt  to  overlook  the  danger  which  may  come  from  words  :  ''  We 
are  inclined  to  say  that  is  only  talk — wait  t.ll  some  act  is  done,  and  then  it  will 


116  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

be  time  to  move.     But  words  may  be,  and  sometimes  are,  things — living,  burn- 
ing things  that  set  a  world  on  fire." 

Asa  most  notable  instance  of  the  power  of  words,  look  at  the  inception  of  the 
rebellion  through  wliich  we  have  just  passed.  For  a  quarter  of  a  century  the 
nation  took  no  notice  of  the  talk  of  disunion  and  secession  which  was  heard  in 
Congress  and  on  the  "  stump"  until  in  the  South  a  generation  was  taught  them 
by  word,  and  the  word  suddenly  burst  forth  into  terrible,  aAvful  war.  Does  any 
one  doubt  that  if  Jackson  had  hanged  Calhoun  in  1832  for  talking  nullifica- 
tion and  secession,  which  was  embryo  treason,  the  cannon  of  South  Carolina 
against  Fort  Sumter  would  ever  have  been  heard  with  all  their  fearful  and 
deadly  consequences  ?  Nay,  more ;  if  the  United  States  officers,  senators  and 
representatives  had  been  impeached  or  disqualified  from  office  in  1832  for  advo- 
cating secession  on  the  "stump,"  as  was  done  in  1862  by  Congress,  then  our 
sons  and  brothers,  now  dead  in  battle,  or  starved  in  prison,  had  been  alive  and 
happy,  and  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  question  of  slavery  had  been  found. 

Does  any  one  doubt  that  if  the  intentions  of  the  respondent  could  have  been 
carried  out,  and  his  denunciations  had  weakened  the  Congress  in  the  affections 
of  the  people,  so  that  those  who  had  in  the  North  sympathized  with  the  rebel- 
lion could  have  elected  such  a  minority  even,  of  the  representatives  to  Congress 
as,  together  with  those  sent  up  from  the  governments  organized  by  Johnson  in 
the  rebellious  States,  they  should  have  formed  a  majority  of  both  or  either  liouse 
of  Congress,  that  the  President  would  have  recognized  such  body  as  the  legiti- 
mate Congress,  and  attempted  to  carry  out  its  decrees  by  the  aid  of  the  army  and 
navy  and  the  treasury  of  the  United  States,  over  which  he  now  claims  such 
unheard-of  and  illimitable  powers,  and  thus  lighted  the  torch  of  civil  war? 

In  all  earnestness,  Senators,  I  call  each  one  of  you  upon  his  conscience  to  say 
whether  he  does  not  believe  by  a  preponderance  of  evidence  drawn  from  the 
acts  of  the  respondent  since  he  has  been  in  office,  that  if  the  people  had  not  been, 
as  they  ever  have  been,  true  and  loyal  to  their  Congress  and  themselves,  such 
would  not  have  been  the  result  of  these  usurpations  of  power  in  the  Executive? 

Is  it,  indeed,  to  be  seriously  argued  here  that  there  is  a  constitutional  right  in 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  who,  during  his  official  life,  can  never  lay  aside 
his  official  character,  to  denounce,  malign,  abuse,  ridicule,  and  contemn,  openly 
and  publicly,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States — a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the 
government  1 

It  cannot  fail  to  be  observed  that  the  President  (shall  I  dare  to  say  his  coun- 
sel, or  are  they  compelled  by  the  exigencies  of  their  defence,)  have  deceived 
themselves  as  to  the  gravamen  of  the  charge  in  this  article  ?  It  does  not  raise 
the  question  of  freedom  of  speech,  but  of  propriety  and  decency  of  speech  and 
conduct  in  a  high  officer  of  the  government. 

Andrew  Johnson,  the  private  citizen,  as  1  may  reverently  hope  and  trust  he 
soon  will  be,  has  the  full  constitutional  right  to  think  and  speak  what  he  pleases, 
in  the  manner  he  pleases,  and  where  he  pleases,  provided  always  he  does  not  bring 
himself  within  the  purview  of  the  common  law  offences  of  being  a  common  railer 
and  brawler,  or  a  common  scold,  which  he  may  do,  (if  a  male  person  is  ever  liable 
to  commit  that  crime  ;)  but  the  dignity  of  station,  the  proprieties  of  position,  the 
courtesies  of  office,  all  of  which  are  a  part  of  the  common  law  of  the  land,  require 
the  President  of  the  United  States  to  observe  that  gravity  of  deportment,  that  fit- 
ness of  conduct,  that  appropriateness  of  demeanor,  and  those  amenities  of  behavior 
which  are  a  part  of  his  high  official  functions,  lie  stands  before  the  youth  of  the 
country  theexemplar  of  all  that  is  of  worth  in  ambition,  and  all  that  is  to  be  sought 
in  aspiration  ;  he  stands  before  the  men  of  the  country  as  the  grave  magistrate 
who  occupies,  if  he  does  not  fill,  the  place  once  honored  by  Washington  ;  nay, 
far  higher  and  of  greater  consequence,  he  stands  before  the  world  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  free  institutions,  as  the  type  of  man  whom  the  suffrages  of  a  free 
people  have  chosen  as  their  chief.     He  should  be  the  living  evidence  of  how 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  117 

much  better,  higher,  nobler,  and  more  in  the  image  of  God,  is  the  elected  ruler 
of  a  free  people  than  a  hereditary  monaich,  coming  into  power  by  the  accident 
of  birth ;  and  when  he  disappoints  all  these  hopes  and  all  these  expectations, 
and  becomes  the  ribald,  scurrilous  blasphemer,  bandying  ej)ithets  and  taunts 
with  a  jeering  mob,  shall  he  be  heard  to  say  that  such  conduct  is  not  a  high 
misdemeanor  in  office?  Nay,  disappointing  the  hopes,  causing  the  cheek 
to  burn  with  shame,  exposing  to  the  taunts  and  ridicule  of  every  nation  the 
good  name  and  fame  of  the  chosen  institutions  of  thirty  millions  of  people,  is  it 
not  the  highest  possible  crime  and  misdemeanor  in  office  ?  and  under  the  circum- 
stances is  the  gravamen  of  these  charges.  The  words  are  not  alleged  to  be  either 
false  or  defamatory,  because  it  is  not  within  the  power  of  an}'-  man,  however  high 
his  official  position,  in  effect  to  slander  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
ordinary  sense  of  that  word,  so  as  to  call  on  Congress  to  answer  as  to  the  truth 
of  the  accusation.  We  do  not  go  in,  therefore,  to  any  question  of  truth  or  falsity. 
We  rest  upon  the  scandal  of  the  scene.  We  would  as  soon  think,  in  the  trial  of 
an  indictment  against  a  termagant  as  a  common  scold,  of  summoning  witnesses 
to  prove  that  what  she  said  was  not  true.  It  is  the  noise  and  disturbance  in 
the  neighborhood  that  is  the  offence,  and  not  a  question  of  the  provocation  or 
irritation  which  causes  the  outbreak. 

At  the  risk  of  being  almost  offensive,  but  protesting  that  if  so  it  is  not  my 
fault  but  that  of  the  person  whose  acts  I  am  describing,  let  me  but  faintly  pic- 
ture to  you  the  scene  at  Cleveland  and  St.  Louis. 

It  is  evening;  the  President  of  the  United  States  on  a  journey  to  do  homage 
at  the  tomb  of  an  illustrious  statesman,  accompanied  by  the  head  of  the  army 
and  navy  and  Secretary  of  State,  has  arrived  in  the  great  central  city  of  the 
continent.  He  has  been  welcomed  by  the  civic  authorities.  He  has  been 
escorted  by  a  procession  of  the  benevolent  charitable  societies  and  citizens  and 
soldiers  to  his  hotel.  He  has  returned  thanks  in  answer  to  address  of  the  mayor 
to  the  citizens  who  has  received  him.  The  hospitality  of  the  city  has  provided 
a  banquet  for  him  and  his  suite,  when  he  is  again  expected  to  address  the  chosen 
guests  of  the  city  where  all  things  may  be  conducted  in  decency  and  in  order. 
While  he  was  resting,  as  one  would  have  supposed  he  would  have  wished  to  do  from 
the  fiitigue  of  the  day,  a  noisy  crowd  of  men  and  boys,  washed  and  unwashed, 
drunk  and  sober,  black  and  white,  assemble  in  the  street,  who  make  night 
hideous  by  their  bawling ;  quitting  the  drawing  room  without  the  advice  of  his 
friends,  the  President  of  the  United  States  rushes  forth  on  to  tlie  balcony  of  the 
hotel  to  address  what  proves  to  have  been  a  mob,  and  this  he  calls  in  his  answer  a 
"  fit  occasion  on  which  he  is  held  to  the  high  duty  of  expressing  opinions  of  and 
concerning  the  legislation  of  Congress,  proposed  or  completed,  in  respect  of  its 
■wisdom,  expediency,  justice,  worthiness,  objects,  purposes,  and  public  and 
political  motives  and  tendencies," 

Observe  now,  upon  this  "  fit  occasion,"  like  in  all  respects  to  that  at 
Cleveland,  when  the  President  is  called  upon  by  the  constitutional  requirements 
of  his  office  to  expound  "the  wisdom,  expediency,  justice,  worthiness,  objects, 
purposes,  and  tendencies  of  the  acts  of  Congress,"  what  he  says,  and  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  says  it.  Does  he  speak  with  the  gravity  of  a  Marshall  when 
expounding  constitutional  law  ?  Does  he  use  the  polished  sentences  of  a  Wirt  ? 
Or,  failing  in  these,  which  may  be  his  misfortune,  does  he,  in  plain,  homely 
words  of  truth  and  soberness,  endeavor  to  instruct  the  men  and  youth  before 
him  in  their  duty  to  obey  the  laws  and  to  reverence  their  rulers,  and  to  prize 
their  institutions  of  government  ?  Although  he  may  have  been  mistaken  in  the 
aptness  of  the  occasion  for  such  didactic  instruction,  still  good  teaching  is  never 
thrown  away.  He  shows,  however,  by  his  language,  as  he  had  shown  at  Cleve- 
land, that  he  meant  to  adapt  himself  to  the  occasion.  He  has  hardly  opened 
his  mouth,  as  we  shall  show  you,  when  some  one  in  the  crowd  cries,  "  How 
about  our  British  subjects?" 


118  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Chief  Executive,  supported  by  his  Secretary  of  State,  so  that  all  the 
foreign  relations  and  diplomatic  service  were  fully  represented,  with  a  dignity 
that  not  even  his  counsel  can  appi'eciate,  and  with  an  amenity  which  must 
have  delighted  Downing  street,  answers  :  "  We  will  attend  to  John  Bull  after 
awhile,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned."  The  mob,  ungrateful,  receive  this  bit  of 
"expression  of  opinion  upon  the  justice,  worthiness,  objects,  purposes,  and  public 
and  political  motives  and  tendencies"  of  our  relations  with  the  kingdom  of  Great 
Britain,  as  they  fell  from  the  honored  lips  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
■with  lavghter,  and  the  more  unthinking  with  cheers. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  our  diplomatic  relations  with  the  first  naval  and  com- 
mercial iiation  on  earth,  the  President  next  proceeds  to  "express  his  opinion  in 
manner  aforesaid  and  for  the  purposes  aforesaid"  to  this  noisy  mob  on  the  subject  of 
the  riots  upon  which  his  answer  says,  "  it  is  the  conslitutioual  duty  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  express  opinions  for  the  purposes  aforesaid."  A  voice  calls  out  "New 
Orleans  !  go  on  !  "  After  a  graceful  exordium  the  President  expresses  his  high 
opinion  that  a  massacre,  wherein  his  pardonedand  unpardoned  rebel  associates  and 
friends  deliberately  shot  down  and  murdered  unarmed  Union  men  without  provoca- 
tion, even  Horton,  the  minister  of  the  living  God,  as  his  hands  were  raised  to 
the  Prince  of  Peace,  praying  in  the  language  of  the  great  martyr,  "  Father 
forgive  them  for  they  know  not  what  they  do,"  was  the  result  of  the  laws 
passed  by  the  legislative  department  of  your  government  in  the  words  following, 
that  is  to  say  : 

"If  you  will  take  up  the  riot  at  New  Orleans  and  trace  it  back  to  its  source,  or  to  its 
immediate  cause,  you  will  tiiid  out  who  was  responsible  for  the  blood  that  was  shed  there." 
"  If  you  take  up  the  riot  at  New  Orleaus  and  trace  it  back  to  the  radical  C<)ng-ress  " — 

This,  as  we  might  expect,  was  received  by  the  mob,  composed,  doubtless,  in 
large  part  of  unrepentant  rebels,  Avith  great  cheering  and  cries  of  "  bully."  It 
was  "  bully,"  if  that  means  encouraging  for  them  to  learn  on  the  authority  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  that  they  might  shoot  down  Union  men  and 
patriots,  and  lay  the  sin  of  murder  upon  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  ; 
and  this  was  another  bit  of  "  opinion  "  which  the  counsel  say  it  was  the  high 
duty  of  the  President  to  express  upon  the  justice,  the  worthiness,  objects,  "pur- 
poses and  public  and  political  motives,  and  tendencies  of  the  legislation  of  your 
Congress." 

After  some  further  debate  with  the  mob  some  one,  it  seems,  had  called  out 
"traitor!  "  The  President  of  the  United  States,  on  this  fitting,  constitutional 
occasion,  immediately  took  this  as  personal,  and  replies  to  it,  "  Now,  my  country- 
men, it  is  very  easy  to  indulge  in  epithets,  it  is  very  easy  to  call  a  man  Judas, 
and  cry  out  traitor,  but  when  he  is  called  upon  to  give  arguments  and  facts  he 
is  very  often  found  wanting." 

What  were  the  "  facts  that  were  found  wanting,"  which  in  the  mind  of  the 
President  ])revented  him  from  being  a  Judas  Iscariot?  lie  shall  state  the 
"  wanting  facts  in  his  own  language  on  this  occasion  when  he  is  exercising  his 
high  constitutional  prerogative." 

"Judas  Iscariot!  Judas!  There  was  a  Judas  once,  one  of  the  twelve  apostles.  Oh! 
yes,  the  twelve  apostles  had  a  Christ.  [A  voice,  'and  a  Moses,  too;'  jjreat  laug-htcr. ] 
The  twelve  ajjostles  had  a  Christ,  and  he  never  could  have  hud  a  Judas  unless  he  had  had 
the  twelve  apostles.  If  I  have  ])layed  the  Judas,  who  has  been  my  Christ  that  I  have 
played  the  Judas  with?  Was  it  Thad.  Stevens?  Was  it  Weudoll  Phillips?  Was  it 
Charles  Sumner?" 

If  it  were  not  that  the  blas[)heniy  shocks  us  we  should  gather  from  all  this 
that  it  dwelt  in  the  mind  of  the  I'resident  of  the  United  States  that  the  only 
reason  why  he  was  not  a  Judas  was  that  he  had  not  been  able  to  find  a  Christ 
toward  whom  to  play  the  Judas. 

It  will  appear  that  this  bit  of  "opinion,"  given  in  pursuance  of  his  consti- 
tutional obligation,  was  received  with  cheei's  and  hisses.     Whether  the  cheers 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  119 

were  that  certain  patriotic  persons  named  by  him  might  be  hano;efl,  or  the  hiss- 
ing was  because  of  the  in;ibility  of  the  President  to  pLay  the  part  of  Judas,  for 
the  reason  before  stated,  1  am  ?orry  to  say  the  evidence  will  not  inform  us. 

His  answer  makes  the  President  say  that  it  is  his  "  duty  to  express  opinions 
concerning  the  public  characters,  and  the  conduct,  views,  purposes,  objects, 
motives,  and  tendencies  of  all  men  engaged  in  the  public  service." 

Now,  as  "the  character,  motives,  tendencies,  purposes,  objects,  and  views  "  of 
Judas  alone  had  "opinions  expressed"  about  them  on  this  "fit  occasion," 
(although  he  seemed  to  desire  to  have  some  others,  whose  names  he  mentioned, 
tanged,)  I  shall  leave  his  counsel  to  inform  you  what  were  the  "  public  services  " 
of  Judas  Iscariot,  to  say  nothing  of  Moses,  which  it  was  the  constitutional  duty 
and  right  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  discuss  on  this  particularly 
"  fit  occasion." 

But  I  will  not  pui-sue  this  revolting  exhibition  any  further. 

I  will  only  show  you  at  Cleveland  the  crowd  and  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  darkness  of  night,  bandying  epithets  with  each  other,  crying, 
"Mind  your  dignity,  Andy;"  "Don't  get  mad,  Andy;"  "Bully  for  you 
Andy."  I  hardly  dare  shock,  as  I  must,  every  sense  of  propriety  by  calling 
your  attention  to  the  President's  allusion  to  the  death  of  the  sainted  martyr, 
Lincoln,  as  the  means  by  which  he  attained  his  office,  and  if  it  can  be  justified 
in  any  man,  public  or  private,  I  am  entirely  mistaken  in  the  commonest  propri- 
eties of  life.     The  President  shall  tell  his  own  story  : 

"There  was,  two  years  ago,  a  ticket  before  you  for  the  presidency.  I  was  placed  upon 
that  ticket  with  a  distinguished  citizen  now  no  more.  [Voices,  'Its  a  pity;'  'Too  bad;' 
'Unfortunate.']  Yes,  I  know  there  are  some  who  say  'unfortunate.'  Yes,  unfortunate 
for  some  that  God  rules  on  high  and  deals  injustice.  [Cheers.]  Yes,  unfortunate.  The 
ways  of  Providence  are  mysterious  and  incomprehensible,  controlling  all  who  exclaim 
'  unfortunate.' " 

Is  it  wonderful  at  all  that  such  a  speech,  which  seems  to  have  been  unpro- 
voked and  coolly  uttered,  should  have  elicited  the  single  response  from  the 
crowd,  "  Bully  for  you?" 

I  go  no  further.  I  might  follow  this  ad  nauseam.  I  grant  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  further  upon  this  disgraceful  scene  the  mercy 
of  my  silence.  Tell  me  now,  who  can  read  the  accounts  of  this  exhibition,  and 
reflect  that  the  result  of  our  institutions  of  government  has  been  to  place 
such  a  man,  so  lost  to  decency  and  propriety  of  conduct,  so  unfit,  in  the  high 
office  of  ruler  of  this  nation,  without  blushing  and  hanging  his  head  in  shame  as 
the  finger  of  scorn  and  contempt  for  republican  democracy  is  pointed  at  him  by 
some  advocate  of  monarchy  in  the  old  world.  What  answer  have  you  when  an 
intelligent  foreigner  says.  Look !  see !  this  is  the  culmination  of  the  ballot  unre- 
strained in  the  hands  of  a  free  people,  in  a  country  where  any  man  may  aspire 
to  the  office  of  President.  Is  not  our  government  of  a  hereditary  king  or  empe- 
ror a  better  one,  where  at  least  our  sovereign  is  born  a  gentleman,  than  to  have 
such  a  thi7ig  as  this  for  a  ruler  ? 

Yes,  we  have  an  answer.  We  can  say  this  man  was  not  the  choice  of  the 
people  for  the  President  of  the  United  States.  He  was  thrown  to  the  surface 
by  the  whirlpool  of  civil  war,  and  carelessly,  we  grant,  elected  to  the  second 
place  in  the  government,  without  thought  that  he  might  ever  fill  the  first. 

By  murder  most  foul  he  succeeded  to  the  Presidency,  and  is  the  elect  of  an 
.assassin  to  that  high  office,  and  not  of  the  people.  "  It  was  a  grievous  fault, 
and  grievously  have  we  answered  it;"  but  let  me  tell  you,  oh,  advocate 
of  monarchy !  that  our  frame  of  government  gives  us  a  remedy  for  such  a  mis- 
fortune, which  yours,  with  its  divine  right  of  kings,  does  not.  We  can  remove 
him — as  we  are  about  to  do — from  the  office  he  has  disgraced  by  the  sure,  safe, 
and  constitutional  method  of  impeachment;  while  your  king,  if  he  becomes  a 


120  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

buffoon,  or  a  jester,  or  a  tyrant,  can  only  be  displaced  through  revolution,  blood- 
fched,  and  civil  war. 

Thic — this,  oh,  monarchist ! — is  the  crowning  glory  of  our  institutions,  because 
of  which,  if  for  no  other  reason,  our  form  of  government  claims  precedence  over 
all  other  governments  of  the  eartli. 

Article  11  charges  that  the  President,  having  denied  in  a  public  speech 
on  the  ISth  of  August,  18G6,  at  "Washington,  that  the  39th  Congress  was  author- 
ized to  exercise  legislative  power,  and  denying  that  the  legislation  of  said  Con- 
gress was  valid  or  obligatory  upon  him,  or  that  it  had  power  to  propose  certain 
amendments  to  the  Constitution,  did  attempt  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the 
act  entitled  "  An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  ofBces,"  by  unlawfully 
attempting  to  devise  means  by  which  to  prevent  Mr.  Stanton  from  resuming  the 
fuiictions  of  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Department  of  War,  notwithstanding 
the  refusal  of  the  Senate  to  concur  in  his  suspension,  and  that  he  also  contrived 
means  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  of  March  2,  1867,  which  provides 
that  all  military  orders  shall  be  issued  through  the  General  of  the  army  of  the 
United  States,  and  also  another  act  of  the  same  2d  of  March,  commonly  known 
as  the  reconstruction  act. 

To  sustain  this  charge,  proof  will  be  given  of  his  denial  of  the  authority  of  Con- 
gress as  charged;  also  his  letter  to  the  General  of  the  army,  in  which  he  admits 
that  he  endeavored  to  prevail  on  him  by  pi-omises  of  pardon  and  indemnity  to  disobey 
the  requirements  of  the  tenure-of-office  act,  and  to  hold  the  office  of  Secretary  of 
War  against  Mr.  Stanton  after  he  had  been  reinstated  by  the  Senate;  that  he 
chided  the  General  for  not  acceding  to  his  reqixest,  and  declared  that  had  he 
known  that  he  (Grant)  would  not  have  acceded  to  his  wishes  he  would  have 
taken  other  means  to  prevent  Mr.  Stanton  from  resuming  his  office ;  his  admis- 
sion in  his  answer  that  his  purpose  was  from  the  first  suspension  of  Mr.  Stanton, 
August  12,  1867,  to  oust  him  from  his  office  notwithstanding  the  decision  of  the 
Senate  under  the  act ;  his  order  to  General  Grant  to  refuse  to  recognize  any 
order  of  Mr.  Stanton  purporting  to  come  from  himself  after  he  was  so  reinstated, 
and  his  order  to  General  Thomas  as  an  officer  of  the  army  of  the  United  States 
to  take  possession  of  the  War  Office,  not  transmitted  as  it  should  have  been 
through  the  General  of  the  army,  and  the  declarations  of  General  Thomas  that, 
as  an  officer  of  the  army  of  the  United  States,  he  felt  bound  to  obey  the  orders 
of  the  Commander-in-chief, 

To  prove  further  the  purpose  and  intent  with  which  his  declarations  wore 
made,  and  his  denial  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  propose  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution, and  as  one  of  th(i  means  employed  by  him  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the 
acts  of  Congress,  we  shall  show  he  has  opposed  and  hindered  the  pacification  of 
the  country  and  the  return  of  the  insurrectionary  States  to  the  Union,  and  has 
{.dviscd  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Alabama  not  to  adopt  the  constitutional 
amendment  known  as  the  14tb  article,  Avhen  appealed  to  to  know  if  it  was  best 
for  the  legislature  so  to  do;  and  this,  too,  after  that  amendment  had  been 
adoj)ted  by  a  majority  "of  the  loyal  State  legislatures,  and  after,  in  the  election 
of  1866,  it  had  been  sustained  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  loyal  people 
of  the  United  States.  I  do  not  propose  to  comment  further  on  this  article, 
because,  if  the  Senate  shall  have  decided  that  all  the  acts  charged  in  the  pre- 
ceding articles  are  justified  by  law,  then  so  large  a  part  of  the  intent  and  pur- 
poses with  which  the  resijondent  is  charged  in  this  article  would  fail  of  proof, 
that  it  would  be  difficult  to  say  whether  he  might  not,  with  equal  impunity,  vio- 
late the  laws  known  as  the  reconstruction  acts,  which,  in  his  message,  he 
declares  "as  plainly  miconstiluticmul  as  any  that  can  be  imngined."  If  that 
be  so,  why  should  he  not  violate  tli(;ni  ?  If,  therefore,  the  judgment  of  the 
Senate  shall  sustain  us  upon  the  other  articles,  we  shall  take  judgment  upon 
this  by  confession,  as  the  respondent  declares  in  the  same  message  that  he  does 
rot  intend  to  execute  them. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  121 

To  the  bar  of  tliis  High  Tribunal,  invested  with  all  its  groat  power  anrl  duties,  the 
House  of  Repieseutatives  has  brought  the  President  of  the  United  States  by 
the  most  solemn  form  of  accusation,  charging  him  with  high  crimes  and  misde- 
meanors in  office,  as  set  forth  in  the  several  articles  which  I  have  thus  feebly 
presented  to  your  attention.  Now,  it  seems  necessary  that  I  should  briefly 
touch  upon  and  bring  freshly  to  your  remembrance  the  history  of  some  of  the 
events  of  his  administration  of  affairs  in  his  high  office,  in  order  that  the  intents 
with  which  and  the  purposes  for  which  the  respondent  committed  the  acts  alleged 
against  him  may  be  fully  understood. 

Upon  the  first  reading  of  the  articles  of  impeachment,  the  question  might  have 
ai'isen  in  the  mind  of  some  Senator,  why  are  these  acts  of  the  President  only 
presented  by  the  House  when  history  informs  us  that  others  equally  dangerous 
to  the  liberties  of  the  people,  if  not  more  so,  and  others  of  equal  usurpation  of 
powers,  if  not  greater,  are  passed  by  in  silence  ? 

To  such  possible  inquiry  we  reply  :  That  the  acts  set  out  in  the  first  eight 
articles  are  but  the  culmination  of  a  series  of  wrongs,  malfeasances  and  usurpa- 
tions committed  by  the  respondent,  and  therefore  need  to  be  examined  in  the 
light  of  his  precedent  and  concomitant  acts  to  grasp  their  scope  and  design. 
The  last  three  articles  presented  show  the  perversity  and  malignity  with  which 
he  acted,  so  that  the  man  as  he  is  known  to  us  may  be  clearly  spread  upon 
record  to  be  seen  and  known  of  all  men  hereafter. 

What  has  been  the  respondent's  course  of  administration  ?  For  the  evidence 
we  rely  upon  common  fame  and  current  history  as  sufficient  proof.  By  the 
common  law,  common  fame,  "si  oriaiur  apud  honos  et  graiws,^'  was  ground  of 
indictment  even  ;  more  than  240  years  ago  it  was  determined  in  Parliament  "that 
common  fame  is  a  good  ground  for  the  proceeding  of  this  house,  either  to 
inquire  of  here  or  to  transmit  the  complaint,  if  the  house  find  cause,  to  the 
King  or  Lords." 

Now,  is  it  not  well  known  to  all  good  and  grave  men  ("  bonos  et  graves  ") 
that  Andrew  Johnson  entered  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States  at  the 
close  of  the  armed  rebellion,  making  loud  denunciation,  frequently  and  every- 
where, that  traitors  ought  to  be  punished,  and  treason  should  be  made  odious  ; 
that  the  loyal  and  true  men  of  the  South  should  be  fostered  and  encouraged  ; 
and,  if  there  were  but  few  of  them,  to  such  only  should  be  given  in  charge  the 
reconstruction  of  the  disorganized  States  ? 

Do  not  all  men  know  that  soon  afterwards  he  changed  his  course,  and  only 
made  treason  odious,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  by  appointing  traitors  to  office 
and  by  an  indiscriminate  pardon  of  all  who  "came  in  unto  him?"  Who  does 
not  know  that  Andrew  Johnson  initiated,  of  his  own  will,  a  course  of  recon- 
struction of  the  rebel  States,  which  at  the  time  he  claimed  was  provisional  only, 
and  until  the  meeting  of  Congress  and  its  action  thereon  ?  Who  does  not  know 
that  when  Congress  met  and  undertook  to  legislate  upon  the  very  subject  of 
reconstruction,  of  which  he  had  advised  them  in  his  message,  which  they  alone 
had  the  constitutional  power  to  do,  Andrew  Johnson  last  aforesaid  again  changed 
his  course,  and  declared  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  legislate  upon  that  sub- 
ject; that  the  two  houses  had  only  the  power  separate?!/  to  judge  of  the  quali- 
fications of  the  members  who  might  be  sent  to  each  by  rebellious  constitu- 
encies, acting  under  State  organizations  which  Andrew  Johnson  had  called  into 
existence  by  his  late  Jiat,  the  electors  of  which  were  voting  by  his  permission 
and  under  his  limitations  ?  Who  does  not  know  that  when  Congress,  assuming 
its  rightful  power  to  propose  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  had  passed  such 
an  amendment,  and  had  submitted  it  to  the  States  as  a  measure  of  pacification, 
Andrew  Johnson  advised  and  counselled  the  legislatures  of  the  States  lately  in 
rebellion,  as  well  as  others,  to  reject  the  amendment,  so  that  it  might  not  operate 
as  a  law,  and  thus  establish  equality  of  suftVage  in  all  the  States,  and  equality  of 


122  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

right  in  the  members  of  the  electoral  college,  and  in  the  number  of  the  repre- 
sentatives to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States? 

Lest  any  one  should  doubt  the  correctness  of  this  piece  of  history  or  the  truth 
of  this  common  fame,  we  shall  show  you  that  while  the  legislature  of  Alabama 
was  deliberating  upon  the  reconsideration  of  the  vote  whereby  it  had  rejected 
the  constitutional  amendment,  the  fact  being  brought  to  the  knowledge  of 
Andrew  Johnson  and  his  advice  asked,  he,  by  a  telegraphic  message  under  his 
own  hand,  here  to  he  prodnced,  to  show  his  intent  and  purposes,  advised  the 
legislature  against  passing  the  amendment,  and  to  remain  firm  in  their  opposition 
to  Congress.  We  shall  show  like  advice  of  Andrew  Johnson  upon  the  same 
subject  to  the  legislature  of  South  Carolina,  and  this,  too,  in  the  winter  of  1867, 
after  the  action  of  Congi-ess  in  proposing  the  constitutional  amendment  had 
been  sustained  in  the  previous  election  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  Thus 
we  charge  that  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  not  only 
endeavors  to  thwart  the  constitutional  action  of  Congress  and  bring  it  to 
naught,  but  also  to  hinder  and  oppose  the  execution  of  the  will  of  the  loyal 
people  of  the  United  States  expressed  in  the  only  mode  by  which  it 
can  be  done,  through  the  ballot-box,  in  the  election  of  their  representatives. 
Who  does  not  know  that  from  the  hour  he  began  these,  his  usurpations  of 
power,  he  everywhere  denounced  Congress,  the  legality  and  constitutionality  of 
its  action,  and  defied  its  legitimate  powers,  and,  for  that  purpose,  announced  his 
intentions  and  carried  out  his  purpose,  as  far  as  he  was  able,  of  removing  every 
true  man  from  office  who  sustained  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  ?  And  it 
is  to  carry  out  this  plan  of  action  that  he  claims  the  unlimited  power  of  removal, 
for  the  illegal  exercise  of  which  he  stands  before  you  this  day.  Who  does  not 
know  that,  in  pursuance  of  the  same  plan,  he  used  his  veto  power  indiscrimi- 
nately to  prevent  the  passage  of  wholesome  laws,  enacted  foi  the  pacification  of 
the  country  ?  and,  when  laws  were  passed  by  the  constitutional  majority  over 
his  vetoes,  he  made  the  most  determined  opposition,  both  open  and  covert,  to 
them,  and,  for  the  purpose  of  making  that  opposition  effectual,  he  endeavored  to 
array  and  did  array  all  the  people  lately  in  rebellion  to  set  themselves  against 
Congress  and  against  the  true  and  loyal  men,  their  neighbors,  so  that  murders, 
assassinations,  and  massacres  were  rife  all  over  the  southern  States,  which  he 
encouraged  by  his  refusal  to  consent  that  a  single  murderer  be  punished,  thoug-h 
thousands  of  good  men  have  been  slain  ;  and  further,  that  he  attempted  by  military 
orders  to  prevent  the  execution  of  acts  of  Congress  by  the  military  command- 
ers who  were  charged  therewith.  These  and  his  concurrent  acts  show  conclu- 
sively that  his  attempt  to  get  the  control  of  the  military  force  of  the  government, 
by  the  seizing  of  the  Department  of  War,  was  done  in  pursuance  of  his  general 
design,  if  it  were  possible,  to  overthrow  the  Congress  of  the  United  States ;  and 
he  now  claims  by  his  answer  the  right  to  control  at  his  own  will,  for  the  execu- 
tion of  this  very  design,  every  officer  of  the  army,  navy,  civil,  and  diplomatic 
service  of  the  United  States.  He  asks  you  here.  Senators,  by  your  solemn 
adjudication  to  confirm  him  in  that  right,  to  invest  him  with  that  ))o\ver,  to  be 
used  with  the  intents  and  for  the  purposes  which  he  has  already  shown. 

The  responsibility  is  with  you ;  the  safeguards  of  the  Constitution  against 
usurpation  are  in  your  hands  ;  the  interests  and  hopes  of  free  institutions  wait 
upon  your  verdict.  The  House  of  Representatives  has  done  its  duty.  We 
have  presented  the  facts  in  the  constitutional  manner  ;  we  have  brought  the 
criminal  to  your  bar,  and  dcTnand  judgment  at  your  hands  for  his  so  great  crimes. 

Never  again,  if  Andrew  Johnson  go  cjuit  and  free  this  day,  can  the  people  of 
this  or  any  other  country  by  constitutional  checks  or  guards  stay  the  usurpa- 
tions of  executive  power. 

I  speak,  therefore,  not  the  language  of  exaggeration,  bat  the  words  of  truth 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  123 

and  soberness,  that  the  future  political  welfare  and  liberties  of  all  men  hang 
trembling  on  the  decision  of  the  hour. 

The  following  is  the  brief  referred  to  by  Mr.  Butler  in  the  course  of  his  argu- 
ment : 

A  brief  of  tJ/e  autlioi-ities  vjwn  thelawqfimpeacJiable  crimes  and  vii'sdemcanors, 
2)repar€d  by  Hon.  William  Lawrence,  M.  C,  of  Ohio;  revised  and  presented  by 
B.  F.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts,  one  of  the  managers,  as  a  part  of  his  opening 
argument  on  the  impeachment  of  the  president. 

In  order  to  ascertain  the  impeachable  character  of  an  act  done  or  omitted, 
reference  must  be  had  to  the  Constitution,  expounded  as  it  is  by  history,  by 
parliamentary  and  common  law. 

The  provisions  of  the  Constitution  which  relate  to  or  illustrate  the  law  of 
impeachment  are  these  : 

"  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  choose  their  Speaker  and  other  officers, 
and  shall  have  the  sole  power  of  impeachment."     Art.  1,  §  2. 

"  The  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments.  When  sitting 
for  that  purpose,  they  shall  be  on  oath  or  affirmation.  When  the  President  of 
the  United  States  is  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  shall  preside ;  and  no  person  shall 
be  convicted  without  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present. 

"  Judgment  in  cases  of  impeachment  shall  not  extend  further  than  to  removal 
from  office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  and  enjoy  any  office  of  honor,  trust,  or 
profit  under  the  United  States  ;  but  the  party  convicted  shall  nevertheless  be 
liable  and  subject  to  indictment,  trial,  judgment,  and  punishment,  according  to 
law."     Art.  1,  §  3. 

"  In  case  of  the  removal  of  the  President  from  office,  or  of  his  death,  resig- 
nation, or  inability  to  discharge  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  said  office,  the  same 
shall  devolve  on  the  Vice-President,  and  the  Congress  may  by  law  provide  for 
the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  inability,  both  of  the  President  and 
Vice-President,  declaring  what  officer  shall  then  act  as  President,  and  such 
officer  shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disability  be  removed  or  a  President  shall 
be  elected."    Art.  2,  §  1.. 

"  The  President  shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the  several  States  when  called  into  the 
actual  service  of  the  United  States;  he  may  require  the  opinion,  in  writing,  of 
the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the  executive  departments,  upon  ■any  subject 
relating  to  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices ;  and  he  shall  have  power  to 
grant  reprieves  and  pardons  for  offences  against  the  United  States,  except  iu 
cases  of  impeachment."   Art.  2,  §  2.* 

"  The  President,  Vice  President,  and  all  civil  officers  of  the  United  States, 
shall  be  removed  from  office  on  impeachment  for,  and  conviction  of,  treason, 
bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."    Art.  2,  §  4. 

"The  trial  of  all  crimes,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall  be  by  jury; 
and  such  trial  shall  be  held  in  the  State  where  the  said  crimes  shall  have  been 
committed;  but  when  not  committed  within  any  State,  the  trial  shall  be  at  such 
place  or  places  as  the  Congress  may  by  law  have  directed."    Art.  3,  §  2. 

The  convention  which  framed  the  Constitution  on  the  subject  of  impeachment 
"  proceeded  in  the  same  manner  it  is  manifest  they  did  in  many  other  cases  ; 
they  considered  the  object  of  their  legislation  as  a  hnoion  thing,  having  a  pre- 
vious definite  existence.     Thus  existing,  their  work  was  solely  to  mould  it  into 

*The  clauses  of  the  Constitution  which  declare  that  a  party  impeached  shall  be  "liable  to  indictment;"'  that 
"the  trial  of  all  crimes,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall  be  by  jury;"  that  the  President  shall  have 
power  to  grant  "pardons  for  offences  against  the  United  States,  except  iu  cases  of  impeachment,"  are  all 
either  parts  of  or  modifications  of  the  British  constitution  ;  they  recognize  statutory  and  common  law  Crimea 
as  a  portion,  but  not  all,  of  the  impeachable  otfeuces  here  as  they  were  and  are  In  Eugland. 


124  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

a  suitable  shape.  They  have  given  it  to  us,  not  as  a  thing  of  their  creation,  but 
merely  of  tlieir  modification."  * 

In  England,  a  majority  of  the  lords  impeach,  though,  by  common  law,  twelve 
peers  must  be  })resent  and  concur,  t  Here,  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the 
members  [of  the  Senate]  present  is  requisite. 

In  England,  the  character  and  extent  of  the  punishment  is  in  the  discretion 
of  the  lords.  Here,  it  cannot  extend  further  than  to  removal  from  and  disqual- 
ification to  hold  office. 

In  England,  "all  the  King's  subjects  are  impeachable  in  Parliament."  J  Here, 
according  to  the  received  construction,  "none  are  liable  to  impeachment  except 
officers  of  the  government."  § 

In  England,  the  lords  are  not  sworn  in  trying  an  impeachment,  but  give  their 
decision  upon  their  honor.  Here,  senators  act  under  the  solemn  sanction  of  an 
oath  or  affirmation.  In  England,  the  Crown  is  not  impeachable.  Here,  the 
President  is. 

In  England,  impeachment  may,  to  some  extent,  be  regarded  as  a  mode  of 
trial  designed,  inter  alia,  to  punish  crime,  though  not  entirely  so,  since  a  judg- 
ment on  an  impeachment  is  no  answer  to  an  indictment  in  the  King's  bench.  f| 
Here,  impeachment  is  only  designed  to  remove  unfit  persons  from  office ;  and 
the  party  convicted  is  subject  to  indictment,  trial,  and  punishment  in  the  proper 
courts. 

It  is  absurd  (o  say  that  impeachment  is  here  a  mode  of  procedure  for  the 
punishment  of  crime,  ^  when  the  Constitution  declares  its  object  to  be  removal 
from  and  disr^ualification  to  hold  office,  and  that  "  the  party  convicted  shall 
nevertheless  be  liable  and  subject  to  indictment,  trial,  judgment,  and  punish- 
ment, according  to  law,"  for  his  ^'crimes." 

Subject  to  these  modifications,  and  adopting  the  recognized  rule,  that  the 
Constitution  should  be  construed  so  as  to  be  equal  to  every  occasion  which 
might  call  for  its  exercise,  and  adequate  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of  its 
framers,  impeachment  remains  here  as  it  was  recognized  in  England  at  and  prior 
to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

*  Bayard  on  Bkmnt's  Trial.  264 ;  and  he  added  :  "  And  therefore  I  shall  insist  that  it  remains  as  at  common 
law,  [parliamentary,  J  with  the  variance  only  of  the  positive  provisions  of  the  Constitution."  (Wharton's  State 
Trials,  264  ;  Kawle  ou  Const,,  2li0.) 

"The  Constitution  *  *  refers  to  *  *  impeachraont  without  dctiuing  it.  It  assumes  the  existence 
*  *  and  silently  points  us  to  English  precedents  for  knowledge  of  details.  We  are  reminded  of  the  state- 
ment *  *  that 'the  Constitution  is  an  instrument  of  enumeration,  aud  not  of  dodnitiou.'"  (Prof.  Dwight, 
6  Am.  Law  Ke|r.,  N.  S.,  257.) 

t  5  Comyn's  Digest,  308,  Parliament  L. 

J  2  Wooddeson's  Lectures,  602. 

§  In  Chase's  Trial  Mr.  Rodney  "utterly  disclaimed  the  idea  that"  any  but  njjiccrs  were  liable  to  impeach- 
ment. 

Wharton  says  in  reference  to  Blount's  Trial:  "In  a  legal  point  of  view  all  that  this  case  decides  is  that  a 
senator  of  the  United  States  who  has  been  expelled  from  his  seat  is  not,  after  such  expulsion,  subject  to 
impeachment,  and  perhaps  from  this  the  broader  proposition  may  bo  drawn  that  none  are  liable  to  impeach- 
ment except  officers  of  the  government,  in  the  technical  sense,  excluding  thereby  members  of  the  national 
legislature.  Afterwards,  from  the  expulsion  of  Mr.  Smith,  a  senator  from  Ohio,  for  connection  with  Burr's 
conspiracy,  instead  of  his  impeachment,  the  same  implication  arises."     (Wharton's  State  Trials,  :U7,  note.) 

In  this  case  Mr.  Bayard  maintained  "that  all  persona  '  *  are  liable  to  impeachment;"  that  tlie  Constitution 
does  not  define  the  cases  or  describe  the  persons  designed  as  the  objects  of  imi)eaehment.  "  We  are  designedly 
left  to  the  ruKnliitions  of  the  common  [parliamentary]  law."  This  view  is  eontirmed  by  the  fact  that  Art. 
2,  §  A,  imperatively  requires  "removal  from  office"  in  case  of  the  President,  Vice-President,  and  otlicers, 
while  Art,  1,  §  :i,  seems  to  admit  of  less  punishment  than  this,  and  which  nuist,  therefore,  apply  to  persons 
other  than  officers. — See  WiekliflTe's  argument.  Peck's  Trial,  309.  The  constitution  of  New  York  of  1777  is 
Haid  to  have  been  the  moiiel  from  which  tlie  impeachment  clauses  of  the  Constitution  of  thi'  United  States 
were  copied.— fi  Am.  Law  Beg.,  N.  S.,  277.  That  of  New  York  limits  impeachments  to  otlicers  in  terms ;  that 
of  the  United  States  does  not.     There  may  be  agents  and  others  for  whom  impeachments  wonltl  lu'  salutary. 

lu  Kngland.  military  and  naval  officers  are  impeachable.  l(  u  military  or  naval  officer  here  should  con- 
Bpire  with  till'  I'resiilcnl  to  overthrow  Congress  the  impeachment  of  l)olli  would  bo  a  necessary  proti'Ction, 
which  it  may  be  doubted  if  the  Constitution  intended  to  surrender.  In  studi  case  a  court-martial  could  not, 
against  the  i'resideut's  will,  remove  from  office;  impeachment  alone  would  be  effectual.  (Wharton's  State 
Trials,  290.) 

II  Filzharris's  Case,  6  Am.  Law  Reg.,  N.  S.,  262. 

U  "Impeachment  is  a  proceeding  purely  of  a  political  nature.  It  is  not  ho  much  designed  to  punish  the 
offender  as  to  secure  the  state.  It  touches  neither  his  person  nor  his  property,  but  simply  divests  him  of  hili 
political  capacity."    (Bayard's  Speech  on  Blount's  Trial ;  Wharton's  State  Trials,  263.) 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT,  125 

Tlie?e  limitations  were  imposed  in  view  of  the  abuses  of  the  power  of 
impeachment  in  English  history,* 

These  abuses  were  not  guarded  against  in  our  Constitution  by  limiting, 
drfiuing,  or  reducing  impeachable  crimes,  since  the  same  necessity  existed  here 
as  in  England  for  the  remedy  of  impeachment,  but  by  other  safeguards  thrown 
around  it  in  that  instrument.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  "sole power  of  impcach- 
menV  is  conferred  on  the  House,  and  the  sole  power  of  trial  on  the  Senate  by 
Art.  1,  §§  2  and  3.  These  are  the  only  jurisdictional  clauses,  and  they  do  not 
limit  im[)eachment  to  crimes  or  misdemeanors.  Nor  is  it  elsewhere  so  limited. 
Sec.  4  of  Art.  2  only  makes  it  imperative  when  "  the  President,  Vice-President, 
and  all  civil  officers"  are  convicted  "of  treason,  bribery,  or  other  bight  crimes 
and  misdemeanors,"  that  they  shall  be  removed  from  office." | 

But  so  far  as  the  questions  now  before  the  country  are  concerned,  it  is  not 
material  whether  the  words  "treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misde- 
meanors "  confer,  or  limit,  jurisdiction,  or  only  prescribe  an  imperative  punish- 
ment as  to  officers  or  a  class  of  cases,  since  every  act  which  by  parliamentary 
usage  is  impeachable  is  defined  a  "high  crime  or  misdemeanor;"  and  these  are 
the  words  of  the  British  constitution  which  describe  impeachable  conduct.  § 
There  may  be  cases  appropriate  for  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  impeachment 
where  no  crime  or  misdemeanor  lias  been  committed. 

As  these  words  are  copied  by  our  Constitution  from  the  British  constitutional 
and  parliamentary  law,  they  are,  so  far  as  applicable  to  our  institutions  and 
condition,  to  be  interpreted,  not  by  English  municipal  law,  but  by  the  lex  par- 
liamentaria.  || 

When,  therefore,  Blackstone  ^  says  that  "an  impeachment  before  the  lords  by 

*  "  Tbe  earliest  recorded  instance  of  impeachment  by  the  Commous  at  the  bar  of  the  House  of  Lords  was  in 
the  reign  of  Edward  III,  (1376.)  Before  tuat  time  the  lords  appear  to  have  tried  both  peers  and  commoneru 
for  great  public  oflfences,  but  not  upon  complaints  addressed  to  them  by  the  Commons.  During  the  next  four 
reigns  cases  of  regular  impeachment  were  frequent;  but  no  instances  occurred  m  the  reigns  of  Edward  IV, 
Henry  VII,  Henry  VIII,  Edward  VI,  Queen  Mary,  and  Queen  Elizabeth. 

"The  institution  had  fallen  into  disuse,  '  (says  Mr.  Hallara,  1  Const.  Hist.,  357,)  "partly  from  the  loss  of  that 
control  which  the  Commons  had  obtained  under  Richard  II  and  the  Lancastrian  kings,  and  partly  from  the 
preference  the  Tudor  princes  had  given  to  bills  of  attainder  or  of  pains  and  penalties,  when  they  wished  to 
turn  the  arm  of  Parliament  against  an  obnoxious  subject." 

"Prosecutions  also  in  the  Star  Chamber,  during  that  time,  were  perpetually  resorted  to  by  the  Crown  for 
the  punishment  of  State  offenders.  lu  the  reign  of  James  I  the  practice  of  impeachment  was  revived,  and 
was  used  with  great  energy  by  the  Commons,  both  as  an  instrument  of  popular  power  and  for  the  furtherance 
of  public  justice. 

"  Between  the  year  1020,  when  Sir  Giles  Mompesson  and  Lord  Bacon  were  impeached,  and  the  revolution  in 
1688,  there  were  about  40  cases  of  impeachment.  In  the  reigns  of  William  III,  Queen  Anne,  and  George  I, 
there  were  15;  and  in  the  reign  of  George  II  none  but  that  of  Lord  Lovat,  in  1746,  for  high  treason.  The 
last  memorable  cases  are  those  of  Warren  Hastings  in  1788,  and  Lord  Melville  in  1605."  (May  on  I'arliameut, 
49-50;  lugersoU's  speech  on  Blount's  trial,  Wharton's  State  Trials,  285;  4  Hatsell,  passim.) 

t  Tlie  word  "high''  applies  as  well  to  "  misdemeanors"  as  to  "crimes."     2  Chase's  Trial,  383. 

J  On  Chase's  Trial  Mr.  R'lduey  so  argued;  and  so  Wickliffe  ou  Peck's  Trial.  309.  In  Blount's  trial  Mr. 
Ingersoll  insisted  that  Art.  2.  sec.  4,  designates  "the  extent  of  the  power  of  impeachment  both  as  to  the 
offences  and  the  persons  liable.'"     (Wharton's  State  Trials,  289;  see  p. "99  per  Harper.) 

§4  Hatsell's  Precedents,  73-76. 

By  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  the  senate  is  "to  hear  and  determine  all  irapeachmenta 
made  by  the  house  of  representatives  against  any  officer  or  officers  of  the  commonwealth  for  misconduct  and 
maladministration  in  office." 

On  the  trial  of  Judge  Prescott  in  1821,  Mr.  Blake  in  defence,  referring  to  the  words  misconduct  and  malad- 
ministration, said:  "What  then  are  the  legal  import  and  signification  of  these  terms?  We  answer  precisely 
the  same  as  of  crimes  and  misdemeanors ;  that  they  are  in  every  respect  equivalent  to  the  more  familiar  terms 
that  are  employed  by  the  constitution  of  Great  Britain  in  its  description  of  impeachable  offences,  subject  only 
to  the  wholesome  limitation  which  in  this  commonwealth  confines  this  extraordinary  method  of  trial  to  the 
official  misdemeanors  of  public  functionaries."     (Prescott's  Trial,  117.  118.) 

II  Pennor.k  v.  Dialogue,  2  Peters,  2-18.  When  foreign  statutes  are  "  adopted  into  our  legislation  the  known 
and  settled  construction  of  those  statutes  by  courts  of  law  has  been  considered  as  silently  incorporated  into  the 
acts  :"  United  States  v.  Junes,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  K.,  209  ;  Bx parte  Hall,  1  Pick.,  201 ;  Sedgwick  on  Stat.  p.  202,  426; 
Story  on  Const.,  §  797;  Rawle  ou  Const..  200.  This  author  says  m  reference  to  impeachments,  "  We  must  have 
recourse  to  the  common  law  of  England  for  the  definition  of  them;'  that  is,  to  the  common  parliamentary  law. 
3  Wheaton,  610;  I  Wood,  and  Minot,  448. 

The  Constitution  contains  inherent  evidence  of  this.  By  it  "treason,  bribery,  and  other  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors"  are  impeachable  "  Treason  "  is  defined  in  the  Con.stitntion  ;  "bribery  "  is  not;  and  it  there- 
fore means  what  the  commou  law  has  defined  it.  As  the  Constitution  thus  itself  resorts  to  the  common  and 
parliamentary  law  for  the  defiuitiou  of  its  terms,  the  words  "  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  "  are  to  be  inter- 
pretated  by  the  same  codes.  They  are  as  completely  included  as  though  every  crime  had  been  specifically 
named.  Whatever  by  the  common  law  was  treason  and  which  is  not  covered  by  the  definition  in  the  Consti- 
tution which  defined  it  for  the  ordinary  courts,  is  still  impeachable  crime  so  far  as  applicable  to  unr  institutions. 

TI  4  Blackstone's  Com.  26U,  read  in  Oxford  1759.  He  says,  also,  "  It  may  happen  that  a  subject  intru.sted  with 
the  administration  of  public  affairs  may  infringe  the  rights  of  the  people  and  be  guilty  of  such  crimes  as  the 
ordinary  magistrate  either  dares  not  or  cannot  punish,"  that  is,  cannot  punish  because  not  falling  within  his 
jurisdiction. 


126  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  commons  of  Great  Britain  in  Parliament  is  a  prosecution  of  the  already- 
known  and  established  law,  and  has  been  frequently  put  in  practice,"  he  must 
be  understood  to  refer  to  the  "established"  parliamentarij,x\oi  common  munici- 
pal law,  as  administered  in  the  ordinary  courts,  for  it  was  the  former  that  had 
been  frequently  put  in  practice. 

Whatever  "crimes  and  misdemeanors"  were  the  subjects  of  impeachment  in 
England  prior  to  the  adoption  of  our  Constitution,  and  as  understood  by  its 
framers,  are  therefore  subjects  of  impeachment  before  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  subject  only  to  the  limitations  of  the  Constitution. 

The  framers  of  our  Constitution,  looking  to  the  impeachment  trials  of  England, 
and  to  the  writers  on  parliamentary  and  common  law,  and  to  the  constitutions 
and  usages  of  our  own  States,  saw  that  no  act  of  Parliament  or  of  any  State 
legislature  ever  undertook  to  define  an  impeachable  crime.  They  saw  that  the 
whole  system  of  crimes,  as  defined  in  acts  of  Parliament  and  as  recognized  at 
common  law,  was  prescribed  for  and  adapted  to  the  ordinary  courts.  (2  Hale, 
PI.  Crown.,  cb.  20,  p.  150;  6  Howell  St.  Trials,  313,  note.) 

They  saw  that  the  high  court  of  impeachment  took  jurisdiction  of  cases  where 
no  indictable  crime  had  been  committed,  in  many  instances,  and  there  were  then, 
as  there  yet  are,  "two  parallel  modes  of  reaching"  some,  but  not  all,  offenders: 
one  by  impeachment,  the  other  by  indictment. 

In  such  cases,  a  party  first  indicted  "may  be  impeached  afterwards,  and  the 
latter  trifil  may  proceed  notwithstanding  the  indictment."*  On  the  other  hand, 
the  King's  Bench  held  in  Fitzharris's  case  that  an  impeaclimeut  was  no  answer 
to  an  indictment  in  tbat  court.f 

The  two  systems  are  in  no  way  connected,  though  each  may  adopt  principles 
applicable  to  tlie  other,  and  each  may  shine  by  the  other's  borrowed  light. 

With  these  landmarks  to  guide  them,  our  fathers  adopted  a  Constitution  under 
which  official  malfeasance  and  nonfeasance,  and,  in  some  cases,  misfeasance,  may 
be  the  subject  of  impeachment,  although  not  made  criminal  by  act  of  Congress, 
or  so  recognized  by  the  common  law  of  England  oe  of  any  State  of  the  Union, 
They  adopted  impeachment  as  a  means  of  removing  men  from  office  whose  mis- 
conduct imperils  the  public  safety  and  renders  them  unfit  to  occupy  official  posi- 
tion. 

All  this  is  supported  by  the  elementary  writers,  both  English  and  American, 
on  parliamentary  and  common  law  ;  by  the  English  and  American  us;ige  in 
cases  of  impeachment;  by  the  opinions  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution;  by 
contemporaneous  construction,  all  uncontradicted  by  any  author,  authority,  case, 
or  jurist,  for  more  than  three-quarters  of  a  century  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution. 

Tbe  authorities  are  abundant  to  show  that  the  plirase  "high  crimes  and  mis- 
demeanors," as  used  in  the  British  and  our  Constitution,  are  not  limited  to  crimes 
defined  by  statute  or  as  recognized  at  common  law  \ 

Christian,  who  may  be  supposed  to  have  understood  ihe  British  constitution 
when  he  wrote,  says  :  "  When  the  words  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  are  used 
in  prosecutions  by  impeachment,  the  words  higli  crimi^s  have  no  definite  signifi- 
cation, but  are  used  merely  to  give  greater  solemnity  to  the  charge. § 

Wooddeson,||  whoselectures  were  read  at  Oxford  in  1777,  declared  that  impeach- 
ments extended  to  cases  of  which  the  ordinary  courts  had  no  jurisdiction.  He 
says  :  "  Magistrates  and  officers  *  *  *  jr,;^y  abuse  their  delegated  powers 
to  tbe  extensive  detriment  of  the  community,  aiid  at  tlie  same  time  in  a  manner 
not  2)roju'ib/  cognizable  hrforc  the  ordinary  trihiotals.''  And  he  proceeds  to 
say  the  remedy  is  by  impeachment. 

*  Stiifford's  Trial,  7  Howard's  Stiite  Trials,  1297.  1  6  Am.  Lbw.  Reg.,  N.  S.,  262. 

♦  If  an  net  to  b<-  iiiipeaclmblu  inu.st  hv  indictable,  tlien  it  miglit  bi'  urged  that  every  act  wliicli  is  indictable 
niu»t  be  iiiipeacliable.  lint  tiiin  linH  never  been  pretended.  An  tbe  Senate  must,  therefore,  decide  what  acta 
are  iinpeactiablo.  it  cannot  be  governed  by  their  iudictublo  character. 

§  Note  to  4  Blnckatone,  5.  II  2  Wooddeson'g  Lectures,  596. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  127 

English  history  presents  many  examples  of  this  kind.* 

*  See  Coin yn's  Digest,  tit.  Parliament.  "  lu  1388  there  are  several  proceedings  before  the  lords  agrainfit  the- 
Archbishop  of  York  and  othiT  gri'sit  officers  and  Ufjaiust  several  of  the  judges,  for  having  given  extrajudicial 
opinions  and  misinterpreting  the  law:"  4  Hatsel,  76;  and  in  a  note  it  is  said  the  lords  determined  that  such 
cages  '^cannot  be  tried  elsewhere  than  in  Parliament,  uor  by  any  other  law  than  the  law  and  cwirse  of  Parla- 
ment."    *    * 

It  is  elsewhere  said,  "such  kind  of  misdeeds  as  peonliariy  injure  the  commonwealth  by  the  atouse  of  high 
otKces  of  trust  are  the  most  proper  *  *  grounds  for  this  kind  of  prosecutions.  Thus  *  *  if  the  judges 
mislead  their  sovereign  by  unconstitutional  opinions,  if  any  other  magistrate  attempt  to  subvert  the  funda- 
nicutal  laws  or  introduce  arbitrary  power.  *  *  So  when  a  lord  chancellor  has  been  thought  to  put  the  seaJ 
to  an  ignominious  treaty;  a  lord  admiral  to  neglect  the  safeguard  of  the  sea,  an  ambassador  to  betray  hi» 
trust;  a  privy  counsellor  to  propound  or  support  pernicious  and  dishonorable  measures,  ifcc,  &c."  (2  Woodde- 
Bon's  Lectures,  602;  1  Blackstoue,  257.) 

In  the  Virginia  convention,  Madison  said  "if  the  President  got  up  a  treaty  by  surprise  hewould  be  impeached." 
(3  Elliott's  Debiites,  660,  516,  514,  496.) 

In  Ohio,  before  it  was  settled  that  the  courts  bad  power  to  declare  legislative  acts  unconstitutional,  one  judge 
of  the  supreme  court  and  one  president  judge  of  the  common  pleas  were  tried  on  impeachments  for  the  exercise 
of  this  power,  and  each  escaped  conviction  by  only  one  vote.  (20  Ohio  Rep.,  Appendix,  p.  3.) 

"  The  Duke  of  Suifolk  was  impeached  for  neglect  of  duty  as  an  ambassador  ;  the  Earl  of  Bristol  that  he  gave 
counsel  against  a  war  with  Spain,  whose  king  had  affronted  the  English  nation  ;  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  that 
he,  being  admiral,  neglected  the  safeguard  of  the  sea;  Michael  de  la  Pole  that  he,  being  chancellor,  acted  con- 
trary to  his  duty;  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  for  having  a  plurality  of  office;  and  he  whom  the  poet  calls  the 
'greatest,  wisest,  meanest  of  mankind.'  for  bribery  in  his  office  of  lord  chancellor;  the  Lord  Finch  for  unlawful 
methods  of  enlarging  the  forest,  in  his  office  of  assistant  to  the  justices  on  Eyre;  the  Earl  of  Oxford  fur  selling 
goods  to  bis  own  use  captured  by  him  as  admiral  without  accounting  for  a  tenth  to  others."  (IngersoU's  Speech 
on  Blount's  Trial,  Wharton's  State  Trials,  291.) 

Dr.  Sacheverel  was  Impeached  for  preaching  an  improper  sermon.  (Harper's  Speech,  Blonnt's  Trial, 
Wharton.  3(il.) 

"  Andrew  Home,  in  his  Mirrour  of  Justice,  mentions  many  judges  punished  by  King  Alfred  before  the  conquest 
for  corrupt  judgments.  *  *■  Our  stories  mention  many  punished  in  the  time  of  Edward  I;  our  Parliament 
rolls  of  Eiiwai'd  Ill's  time;  of  Richard  ll'sthrte  for  ike  ipemicious  resolutions  given  at  Nottingham  Castle^ 
afford  examples  of  this  kind.  In  later  times,  the  Parliament  journals  of  18  and  21  Jac,  the  judgment  of  the 
ship-money  in  the  time  of  Charles  I  questioned,  and  the  particular  judges  impeached."  (Vaugh.,  139;  cited  in 
Appendix  to  Addison's  (Pa.)  Trial.) 

Cases  decided  in  England  since  the  adoption  of  our  Constitution  cannot  limit  the  powers  it  confers.  But 
no  case  can  be  found  in  England  which  limits  impeachment  to  crimes  indictable  by  common  law  or  act  of 
Parliament.  The  power  of  impeachment  for  offences  against  the  State  has  been  distinctly  and  continuously 
maintained. 

The  case  of  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  sustains  this  position.  On  the  10th  July,  1663,  the  Eail  of  Bristol,  with- 
out any  action  of  the  Commons,  presented  to  the  House  of  liords  "articles  of  high  treason  and  other  misde- 
meanors" against  the  Lord  Chancellor.     One  was — 

"  That  being  in  places  of  high  trust,  &c.,  he  hath  traitorously  and  maliciously  endeavored  to  alienate  the 
hearts  of  his  Mnjesty's  subjects  from  him  by  words  of  his  own."  *  *  *  *  "  that  his  Majesty 
was  inclined  to  popery,  and  had  a  design  to  alter  the  religion  established  in  this  kingdom." 

The  statute  13th,  Charles  II,  chapter  1,  provides  that  if  any  person  shall  maliciou-ly  atfirm  the  King  to  be  a 
heretic,  a  papist,  or  that  he  endeavors  to  introduce  popery,  every  person  shall   be  disabled  to  hold  office,  &c. 

The  Lords  ordered  the  Chief  Justice  and  judges  to — 

"Consider  whether  the  said  charge  hath  been  brought  in  regularly  and  legally,  and  whether  it  may  be  pro- 
ceeded in,  and  how,  whether  there  be  any  treason  in  h  or  no.  ' 

The  judges  reported  that  they  did  not  consider  the  question  whether  the  impeachment  could  be  proceeded 
in  or  not  if  it  came  from  the  Commons,  but  as  the  statute  of  1  Henry  IV,  chapter  fourteen,  provides  that  "all 
appeals  of  things  within  the  realm  shall  be  t'-ied  and  determined  by  the  laws  in  the  court,"  articles  of  impeach- 
ment could  not  be  preferred  "  by  the  said  earl  or  any  private  person,"  that  appeals  meant  "accusation  fty 
single  persons."     The  judges  then  say  : 

"  That  there  was  no  treason  in  the  charge,  though  the  matters  in  it  are  alleged  to  be  traitorously  done.  The 
great  charge"  *  *  *  *  "was  that  he  did  traitorously  and  maliciously  to  bring  the  King  into  contempt, 
and  with  an  intent  to  alien  the  people's  affections  from  him  say,"  &c.  *  *  *  .*  "  And  in  like  manner  was 
most  of  the  articles  upon  which  the  character  of  treason  seemed  to  be  fixed.  I  said  that  it  is  a  transcendent 
misprision  or  offence  to  endeavor  to  bring  the  King  into  contempt,  or  to  endeavor  to  alienate  the  people's  affec- 
tions from  liim.  but  yt-t  it  was  not  treason."  ****<-"  We  did  not  meddle  with  anything  concerning 
accuring  him  of  misdemeanor." 

And  so  the  Lords  resolved,  concurring  in  all  these  opinions.     (6  Howai'd's  State  Trials,  318,  346.) 

The  Commons  afterwards  presented  articles  of  impeachment. 

November  16,  1867,  Sir  R.  Howard,  in  discussing  the  heads  of  charges  in  the  Commons,  said.- 

"  Though  common  law  has  its  proper  sphere,  it  is  not  in  this  place — we  are  in  a  higher  sphere." 

November  11.  The  Commons  resolved  to  impeach,  and  notified  the  Lords,  and.  demanded  that  Clarendon  be 
sequestered  from  Parliament,  and  committed.     (6  Howell,  395.) 

"The  Lords  refused  until  the  articles  should  be  presented;  and  before  the  question  was  settled  Clarendon 
escaped  to  the  continent,  and  the  statute  19  Charles  II,  chapter  10,  of  December  12,  banished  him. 

The  Lords,  therefore,  decided  nothing. 

Among  the  articles  agreed  on  in  the  House  were  these : 

IX.  That  he  introduced  an  arbitrary  government  in  his  Majesty's  plantations,  and  bath  caused  such  as  com- 
plained thereof  before  his  Mnjesty  and  counsel  to  be  long  imprisoned  for  so  doing. 

XI.  That  he  advised  and  effected  the  sale  of  Dunkirk  to  the  Preuch  king,  being  part  of  his  Majesty's  domin  - 
ions,  together  with  the  ammunition,  artillery,  and  all  sorts  of  stores  theie,  and  for  bo  greater  value  than  the 
said  ammunition,  aitillery,  and  stores  were  worth. 

XVII.  That  he  was  a  principal  author  of  the  fatal  counsel  of  dividing  the  fleet  about  June,  1666. 

The  case  of  the  Earl  of  Orrery  proves  nothing  as  to  the  law. 

November  25,  1669,  a  petition  was  presented  in  the  House  of  Commons  charging  the  Earl  with — 

"  Raising  moneys  by  his  own  authority  upon  his  Majesty's  subjects,  derauding  the  King's  subjects  of  their 
estates.  The  money  raised  was  for  bribing  hungry  courtiers  to  come  to  his  ends,  and  if  the  King  would  not, 
he  had  fifty  thousand  swords  to  compel  them." 

The  Earl  answered  in  person  and  denied  the  charges.     Then — 

"  The  question  being  propouuded,  that  a  day  be  appointed  for  the  accusers  to  produce  witnesaes  to  mak« 
good  the  charge."  *  *  *  *  "  It  was  negatived  121  to  118." 

It  was  then  lesolved — 

"  That  the  accusation  against  the  Earl  of  Orrery  be  left  to  be  prosecuted  at  law." 


128 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


Indeed,  the  word  "misdemeanor"  has  a  common-law,  a. parliamentary,  and  a 
popular  sense.     In   the  parliamentary  sense,  as  applied   to   officers,  it  means 

It  never  was  proi-ecuted.     (6  Howell,  State  Trials,  915.) 

Sir  Adam  Biair  was  impeached  iu  1690  by  the  Commons — 

"For  dispersing  [distributing]  a  seditious  and  treasonable  paper,  printed  and  entitled  'A  declaration  of 
King  James  II.' '' 

On  the  question  whether  articles  of  impeachment  should  be  preferred,  Mr.  Hawles  said  : 

"I  do  not  think  this  to  be  a  plain  case  of  treason  by  statute  25  Edward  III.  I  do  say  no  court  can  judge 
this  offence  to  be  treason;  and  that  statute  did  plainly  nut  bind  tke  superior  court  of  Parliament  but  the  inferior 
«nly.     The  proper  way  is  to  judge  this  high  treason  ;  and  therefore  1  am  for  proceeding  by  impeachment." 

And  it  was  resolved  to  impeach  of  high  treason. 

April  7,  1690,  he  was  admitted  to  bail,  and  at  the  next  session  of  Parliament  he  was  discharged  from  bail. 

Here  was  a  case  in  which  there  was  clearly  no  treason  under  the  statute,  and  yet  the  Commons  resolved  that  be 
should  be  impeached  and  so  far  decided  that  he  was  guilty  of  an  impeachable,  though  not  an  indictable  crime,  and 
which  they  called  treason ;  adopting  the  idt-a  prevailing  at  the  time  as  to  constructive  tn^ason,  but  which 
might  as  well  have  beea.simply  called  an  impeachable  misdemeanor.     (12  Howell,  State  Trials,  1213.) 

Thomas,  Earl  of  Macclesfield,  lord  high  chancellor  of  England,  was  tried  in  May,  1725,  before  the  House  of 
Lords,  on  articles  of  impeachment  charging  that  he — 

"  In  the  office  of  chancellor  did  illegally  and  corruptly  insist  upon  and  take  of  divers  persons  great  sums  of 
money  in  order  to  and  before  their  admission  into  their  offices  of  master  in  chancery,"  to  which  he  appointed 
them. 

The  answer  was  that  the  sums  of  money  received  were  presents — 

"  Reckoned  among  the  ancient  and  known  perquisites  "  ********* 

■"and  never  before  looked  upon  to  be  criminal "  ********  "  that  the  giving 
or  receiving  a  present  on  such  occasion  is  not  criminal  in  itself,  or  by  the  com,mon  law  of  the  realm,  and  that 
ihere  is  not  any  act  of  Parliament  whatsoever  by  which  the  same  is  made  criminal  or  subject  to  any  punish- 
ment or  judgment." 

Replication  that  "the  charge  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  is  true." 

In  the  argument  it  was  insisted  by  the  managers  that  the  acts  complained  of  violated  the  statutes  of  5  and  6 
Edward  VI,  chapter  16,  against  selling  offices,  and  violated  the  oath  prescribed  by  statute  12  Richard  II. 
<Moor,  781,  Stockwith  &  Worth.) 

But  as  a  question  of  parliamentary  law  it  was  asserted,  and  not  controverted,  that  acts  may  be  impeachable 
which  are  not  indictable  by  common  law  or  act  of  parliament. 

Mr.  Sergent  P<ngelly,  May  21,  1725,  said; 

"  Your  lordships  are  now  exercising  u  power  of  judication  reserved  in  the  original  frame  of  the  English 
constitution  for  the  punishment  of  offences  of  a  public  nature  which  may  alTect  the  nation,  as  well  in  instances 
where  the  inferior  courts  have  nn  poiper  to  punish  thf  crimes  committed  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  justice,  as  in 
cases  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  Westminster  Hall,  where  the  person  offemiiiig  is  by  his  degree 
raised  above  the  apprehension  of  danger  from  a  prosecution  carried  on  in  the  more  usual  c<mrse  of  justice,  and 
whose  exalted  station  requires  the  united  accusation  of  all  the  commons  of  Great  Britain  by  their  representa- 
tives iu  Parliament. 

"This  high  jurisdiction  maybe  exercised  for  the  preservation  of  the  rights  of  the  Lords  and  Commons  against 
the  attempts  of  powerful  evil  ministers  who  depend  upon  the  favor  of  the  Crown  ;  or  it  may  be  put  in  execu- 
tion for  the  ease  and  relief  of  a  good  prince  wlio.se  lionor  has  been  betrayed  by  a  corrupt  servant,  and  yet 
whose  clemency  makes  him  unwilling  to  punish  ;  so  that  it  becomes  neMssary  for  his  faithful  commons  to  take 
into  their  care  the  protection  of  such  an  offender. 

"  Former  reigns  have  supplied  your  journals  with  many  examples  of  the  first  kind.  The  present  reign  pro- 
duces an  instance  of  the  latter  sort,  wherein  the  Commons  bring  before  your  lordships  in  judgment  a  peer 
offending  with  the  greatest  ingratitude  against  a  most  just  and  most  merciful  sovereign." — G  Stale  Trials, 
<Hargrave,)  7:13. 

And  again  it  was  said : 

'%Iy  lords,  if  the  misdemeanors  of  which  the  Earl  impeached  stands  accused  were  not  crimes  by  the  ordinary 
rules  of  law  in  inferior  courts  as  they  have  been  made  <rat  to  be,  yet  they  would  be  offences  of  u  public  nature 
against  the  welfare  of  the  subject  and  the  common,  good  of  the  kingdom,  committed  by  the  highest  officer  of 
justice  and  attended  with  so  great  and  immediate  loss  "to  a  multitude  of  sufferers,  and  as  such  they  would 
demand  the  exercise  of  the  extraordinary  jurisdiction  vested  in  yont  judication  for  ihe  publi  ■  safety  by  virtue 
whereof  your  lordships  can  inflict  that  degree  and  kind  of  punishment  which  no  other  court  can  impose." 
Page  746;  6  State  Trials,  (Hargrave,)  477,  London,  1777.  Same  case,  16  Howell's  State  Trials,  S23;  and  see 
4  Campbell'*  Lord  Chancellors,  5:56;  15  (sixth  N.  S.)  American  Law  Register,  266. 

He  was  convicted. 

Lord  Melville  was  impeached  before  the  Lords  in  1806  for  that,  as  treasurer  of  the  navy,  he  had  used  the 
public  mnney  for  purposes  of  private  gain,  prior  to  and  since  the  statute  of  June,  1785.  (25  Cleorge  III, 
chapter  31.)  It  was  conceded  that  he  had  properly  accounted  for  all  money;  that  he  had  properly  paid  all 
demands  upon  liiin  as  treu.surer;  that  it  had  evi-n  been  down  to  a  certain  period — 

"Irreproachable  to  those  who  exercised  that  office  to  make  use  of  the  public  money  which  passed  through 
their  hands.'" — A^perne's  licport,  6. 

There  was  no  coniplaint  of  any  public  act  "  against  the  welfare  of  the  subject  or  the  commou  good,"  or  sub- 
versive of  any  fundamental  principle  of  government. 

He  could  nut,  iherefiir(\  be  impi^acluHl  unless  he  was  indictable  at  common  law,  or  had  violated  a  statute, 
to  do  which  Is  by  the  common  law  indictable.  The  managers  insisted  that  his  conduct  was  an  o£fence  at 
common  law,  and  since  the  statute  of  June,  1785,  a  violuti>in  of  that  act.     (Aspi-rue's  Report,  138.) 

He  denied  the  charges.     After  hearing  evidence,  questions  were  put  to  the  ju<lge8 ; 

1.  Whether  moneys  issued  from  the  exchei|uer  to  the  credit  of  the  treasurer  of  the  navy  in  the  Bank  of  Eng- 
land ntay  be  lawfully  drawn  therefrom  by  him  lor  Um-  purpose  of  paying  bills  actually  (irawn  upon  the  treus- 
crer,  but  not  yet  actually  presented;  and  whether  money  so  drawn  may  be  deposited  with  a  hanker  until  the 
payment  of  sucli  bills,  and  for  the  purpose  ot  paying  th'in;  or  whether  such  acts  ari^  in  law  a  crime  orolfeuco. 

Answer.  The  judges  answered  that  such  drawing  and  depo-it  of  money  were  lawful  ami  no  crime. 

2.  Whether  moneys  issued  from  tin-  ixclie(|Ui'r  to  tlie  credit  of  the  treasurer  of  the  navy  in  the  B.uik  of  Eng- 
land may  be  lawfully  drawn  therefrom  by  him  to  be  ult'mat(dy  applied  to  navy  services,  tint  in  the  mean  time, 
and  until  re<|uired  fur  the  purpose  of  being  deposited  with  a  private  banker  in  the  name  and  under  the  control 
of  his  (.Melvilli's)  private  clerk. 

Answer.  TIh^  judges  answered  that  if  the  object  of  drawing  the  money  from  the  Bank  of  England  was  to 
deposit  it  wit'i  a  prrvate  banker,  it  was  not  lawful,  altliongli  intended  to  be  and  iu  fact  ultimately  applied  to 
naval  service  :  but  if  so  depo.site(I  bonafde  as  the  means  or  supposed  means  of  more  conveniently  applying  the 
money  to  naval  services,  the  money  may  be  lawfi\lly  drawn. 

3.  Whether  it  was  lawful  for  the"  treasurer,  before  the  statute  25,  George  IH,  chapter  31,  (and  especially  as 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  129 

"maladministration"  or  "  mij^conduct,"  not  necessarily  indictable,*  not  only  in 
England,  but  in  the  United  States. t  Demeanor  is  conduct,  and  he  is  guilty  of 
misdemeanor  who  misdemeans  or  misconducts.  The  power  oCimpeachraent,  so 
far  as  the  President  is  concerned,  was  inserted  in  the  Constitution  to  secure 
"good  behavior,"  to  punish  "misconduct,"  to  defend  "  the  community  against 
the  incapacity,  negligence,  or  pertidy  of  the  chief  magistrate,"  to  punish  "abuse 
of  power,"  "treachery,"  "corrupting  his  electors;"  or,  as  Madison  declared, 
"for  any  act  wliich  might  be  called  a  misdemeanor."|    And  Mr.  Madison  after- 

his  salary  had  beeu  augmeiited  by  the  king's  warrant  iu  full  satiKfaction  of  all  wagt'a,  fees,  and  protitK, )  to  apply 
mont-y  iujpressfd  to  him  for  naval  services  to  any  other  use  whatever,  public  or  private,  and  wlyjther 
liuch  application  would  have  been  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by  informatiou  or  indictment,  'llie  judges 
answered  it  was  not  unlawful,  so  as  to  constitute  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by  information  or  indictment. 

The  form  of  these  questions  implies  that  Melville  had  not  used  the  public  money  for  private  purposes  since 
the  statute  of  25,  George  III,  chapter  31,  and  it  was  not  at  common  law  a  misdemeanor  to  do  ^o  prior  to  the 
statute. 

The  case  was  one  not  calling  for  any  decision  of  the  general  question  whether  an  act  to  be  impeachable  must 
be  indictable,  nor  was  any  such  proposition  discussed.     The  Lords  decided  he  was  not  guilty. 

The  tirst  charge  against  Judge  Humphreys  was  for  advocating  secession  in  a  public  speech  December  29, 
1860,  which  was  no  crime  by  common  or  statute  law,  and  yet  he  was  impeached  and  removed.  There  was  no 
rebellion  then  and  no  "confederate"  government.  (4  Cranch.  75;  1  Dallas,  35;  2  Wallace,  jr.,  139;  2  Bishop, 
Criminal  Law,  118t)-1204  ;  23  Boston  Law  Reporter,  597,  705;  1  Bishop,  5J4;  Burr's  Trial,  Coombs'  Edition, 
322. 

*  "On  the  16th  of  October,  1667.  the  House  being  informed  that  there  have  been  some  innovations  of  late 
in  trials  of  men  for  their  lircs  and  deaths,  and  in  some  particular  cases  restraints  have  been  put  upon  juries 
in  the  inquiries,  this  matter  is  referred  to  a  committee.  Ou  the  18th  of  November  this  committee  are  empow- 
ered to  receive  information  against  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  Kelynge,  for  any  other  MISDEMEANORS  besides  those 
conceruing  juries;  and  on  the  11th  of  December,  U!(j7,  this  committee  report  several  resolutions  against  the 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Kelynge,  of  illegal  and  arbitrary  procecdiiigs  in  his  office.  The  first  of  these  resolutions  is, 
that  the  proceedings  of  the  Lord  Cliief  Justice  in  the  cases  now  reported  are  innovations  in  the  trial  of  men  for 
their  lives  and  liberties;  and  that  he  hath  used  an  arbitrary  and  illegal  power,  which  is  of  dangerous  conse- 
quence to  ihe  lives  and  liberties  of  the  people  of  England,  and  tends  to  the  introducing  of  an  arbiti-ary  govern- 
ment. The  Lord  Chief  Justice  hath  undervalued,  villitied,  and  contemned  Magna  Charta,  the  great  preserver 
of  our  lives,  freedom,  and  property."     (4  Hatsel  Pree. ,  113,  cited  2  Chase's  Trial,  4t>l.) 

One  of  the  resolves  against  Chief  Justice  Scroggs  was,  "  That  the  discharging  the  graud  jury  by  the  Court 
of  King's  Bench  in  Trinity  Term  last,  before  they  had  finished  their  presentments,  was  illegal  arbitrary,  and 
a.u  high  misdemeanor."     (4  Hatsel  127  ;  7  State  Trials,  479.) 

■' Misprisions  which  are  merely  positive  are  generally  denominated  contempts  or  high  misdemeanors,  of 
which — 

"  1.  The  first  and  principal  is  the  maladministration  of  such  high  offices  as  are  in  public  trust  and  employ- 
ment.    This  is  usually  punished  by  the  method  of  parliamentary  impeachment."     (4  Blackst.,  121.) 

tin  Senate,  July  8th,  1797,  it  was  "Resolved,  that  William  Blount,  Esq.,  one  of  the  senators  of  the 
United  .States,  having  been  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor,  entirely  inconsistent  with  his  public  trust  and  duty 
as  a  senator,  be  and  he  hereby  is  expelled  from  the  Senate  of  the  United  States."  (Wharton's  State  Trials,  2U2.) 

He  was  not  guilty  of  an  indictable  crimes.     (Story  on  Const.,  §  799,  note.) 

The  otTence  charged,  Judge  Story  remarks,  "  was  not  defined  by  any  statute  of  the  United  States.  It  was 
an  attempt  to  seduce  a  United  .States  Indian  interpreter  from  his  duty,  and  to  alienate  the  affections  and  con- 
duct of  the  Indians  from  the  public  officers  residing  among  tuem." 

Blackstone  says:  "The  fourth  species  of  oiFence  more  immediately  against  the  king  and  government  are 
CTititled  misprisions  and  contempts.  Misprisions  are  in  the  acceptation  of  our  law  generally  understood  to  bo 
all  such  high  offences  as  are  under  the  degree  of  capital,  but  nearly  bordering  thereon.  *  *  Misprisions 
which  are  merely  positive  are  generally  denominated  contempts  or  high  misdemeanors,  of  which  the  first  and 
principal  is  the  maladminintraliun  of  such  high  offices  as  are  in  public  trust  and  employment.  This  is  usually 
punished  by  the  method  of parliamentari/  impeachment."     (Vol.  4,  p.  121.) 

(See  Prescott's  Trial,  Massachusetts,  1821,  pp.  79-80,  109,  117-2U,  172-180,  191.) 

On  Chase's  Trial,  the  defence  conceded  that  "to  misbehave  or  to  niisdemean  is  precisely  the  same."  (2  Chase's 
Trial.  145.) 

X  Prom  2  Madison's  Papers,  1153,  &c. 

July  20,  1787. 

The  following  clause,  relative  to  the  President,  being  under  consideration: 

"  To  be  removable  on  imperichmeut  and  conviction  for  malpractice  or  neglect  of  duty." 

Mr.  Piuckney  moved  to  strike  this  out,  and  said,    "  He  ought  not  to  be  impeachable  while  in  office." 

"Mr.  Darce.  If  he  be  not  impeachable  whilst  in  office,  he  will  spare  no  efforts  or  means  whatever  to  get 
himself  re-elected.     He  considered  this  as  an  essential  security  for  the  GOOD  BEHAVIOR  of  the  Executive." 

"  Mr.  Wilson  concurred. 

"  Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris.  He  can  do  no  criminal  act  without  coadjutors,  who  may  be  punished.  In  c.ise 
he  should  be  re-elected,  that  will  be  a  sufficient  proof  of  his  innocence.  Besides,  who  is  to  impeach?  Is  the 
impi-achment  to  suspend  his  functions  ?     If  it  is  not,  the  mischief  will  go  ou. 

"  Colonel  Mason.  No  point  is  of  more  importance  than  that  the  right  of  impeachment  should  be  continued. 
Shall  any  man  be  above  justice?  Above  all,  shall  that  man  be  above  it  who  can  commit  the  most  extensive 
injustice  ? 

•■  Dr.  Franklin  was  for  retaining  the  clause  as  favorable  to  the  Executive.  History  furnishes  one  example 
oiily  of  a  first  magistrate  being  formally  brought  to  public  justice.  Everybody  cried  out  against  this  as  uncon- 
stitutional. What  was  the  practice  before  this  in  cases  where  the  Chief  Magistrate  rendered  himseH'obuoxious  ? 
Why,  recourse  was  had  to  assassination,  in  which  he  was  not  only  deprived  of  his  life,  but  of  the  opportunity 
of  vindicating  his  character.  It  would  be  the  best  way,  thereiore,  to  provide  in  the  Constitution  for  the  regu- 
lar punishment  of  the  Executive  where  his  MISCONDUCT  should  deserve  it,  and  for  his  honorable  acquit lal 
where  he  should  be  unjustly  accused. 

"G.  Morris  admits  corruption  and  some  few  other  offences  to  be  such  as  ought  to  be  impeachable,  but 
thought  the  cases  ought  to  be  enumerated  and  defined. 

"  Mr.  Madison  thought  it  indispensable  that  some  provision  should  be  made  for  defending  the  community 
against  the  incapacity,  negligence,  or  perfidy  of  the  Chief  Magistrate.  The  limitation  of  the  period  of  his  ser- 
vice was  not  a  sufficient  security.    He  might  lose  liis  capacity  alter  his  appointment.     He  might  perTert  his 

9  I  P 


130 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 


■ward?  maintained  that  "  the  wanton  removal  of  movitorious  officer!'  would  f  nhject 
him  [the  President]  to  impeachment  and  removal  from  his  own  high  trust."* 

The  Constitution  declares  that  "the  judges,  both  of  the  Supreme  and  inferior 
courts,  shall  hold  their  commissions  dxir'mg  good  behavior.''^ 

By  a  2^nMic  law  every  judge  is  required  to  take  an  oath  as  follows  : 

I  do  soleiniily  swear  that  I  will  admiuister  justice  without  respect  to  persons,  and  do  equal 
rifrht  to  the  poor  and  to  the  rich  ;  and  tliat  I  will  faithfully  and  impartially  discharo^e  and 
perform  all  the  duties  incumbent  on  me  as  judge.  &c.,  according  to  the  best  of  my  abilities 
and  understanding,  agreeably  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States:  so  help 
me  God.t 

By  another  public  law — the  Constitution — the  President  is  required  to  take 
an  oath  that  he  will  "  faithluUy  execute  the  office  of  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  will  to  the  best  of  his  ability  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States." 

These  oaths  are  puhlic  laws  defining  duties,  and  a  violation  of  them  is  an 
impeachable  misdemeanor,  for  Judge  Blackstone  says  :  '*  A  crime  or  misdemeanor 

administration  into  a  scheme  of  peculation  or  oppression.  He  might  betray  his  trust  to  foreign  powers.  *  *  * 
lu  the  case  of  the  executive  magistrate,  which  was  to  be'adniinistered  by  a  single  man,  loss  of  capacity  or 
corruptiou  was  more  within  the  compass  of  probable  events,  and  either  of  them  might  be  fatal  to  the  reptiblic. 
"  Mr.  Gerry  urged  the  necessity  of  impeachments.  A  good  magistrate  will  not  fear  them.  A  bad  one  ouifht 
to  be  kept  in  fear  of  them.  He  hoped  the  maxim  would  never  be  adopted  here  that  the  Chief  Magistrate  could 
do  no  wrong. 

"Mr.  Randolph.  The  propriety  of  impeachments  was  a  favorite  principle  with  him.  Guilt  wherever  found 
ought  to  be  punished.  The  Executive  will  have  great  opportunities  of  abusing  his  power,  particularly  in  time 
of  war. 

"G.  Morris.  ****** 

"The  Executive  ought  to  be  impeachable  for  treachery.  Corrupting  his  elector.^  and  incapacity  were  other 
causes  of  impeachment.  For  the  latter  he  should  be  punished  not  as  a  man,  but  as  an  officer,  and  punished 
only  by  degradation  from  his  otfice. 

"The  proposition  was  agreed  to  by  a  vote  of  eight  States  to  two." 

September  8,  1767. 

(From  3  Madison's  Papers,  1528.) 

"  The  clause  referring  to  the  Senate  the  trial  of  impeachment  against  the  President  for  treason  and  bribery 
was  tukeu  up. 

"Colonel  Mason.  Why  is  the  provision  restrained  to  treason  and  bribery?  Treason,  as  defined  in  the  Con- 
Btitutiou,  will  not  reach  many  great  and  daugerous  offences.  Hastings  is  not  guilty  of  treason.  Attempts  to 
subvert  the  Constitution  may  not  be  treason  as  above  defined.  As  bills  of  attainder,  which  have  saved  the 
British  constitution,  are  forbidden,  it  is  the  more  necessary  to  extend  the  power  of  impeachments. 

'■  He  moved  to  add  after  '  bribery.'  or  '  maladministration.' 

"  Mr.  Madison.  .So  vague  a  terra  will  be  e<iuivalent  to  a  tenure  during  the  pleasure  of  the  Senate. 

"Colonel  Mason  witiidrew  'maladministration,'  and  substituted  "other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors 
against  the  state.'. 

"Agreed  to,  eight  States  to  three. 

"  Jlr.  Madison  objected  to  the  trial  of  the  President  by  the  Senate,  especially  as  he  was  to  be  impeached  by 
the  other  brauch  of  the  legislature;  and  for  any  act  which  might  be  called  a  misdemeanor.  The  President, 
under  these  circumstances,  was  made  improperly  dependent.  He  would  prefer  the  Supremo  Court  for  the 
trial  of  impeachment.s. 

"Mr.  AVilHamson  thought  there  was  more  danger  of  too  much  lenity  than  of  too  much  rigor." 

The  subject  of  impeachment  will  also  be  found  referred  to  under  the  following  dates  in  1787,  to  wit :  May 
28,  June  2,  June  18,  July  18,  August  6,  August  20,  August  22,  September  4,  and  September  17.  The  propo- 
sitions submitted  declared  otiicers  impeachable  "formal  and  corrupt  conduct,"  "for  treason,  bribery,  or  cor- 
ruption," "for  treason  or  bribery."  But  the  Constitution  finally  rejected  all  these  limitations,  and  gave  the 
largest  power  of  impeachment  known  to  parliamentary  law  so  far  as  it  relates  to  misdemeanors. 

'On  the  16th  June,  1789,  on  the  bill  to  establish  a  department  of  foreign  aflfairs,  Mr.  Madison  said  in  Con- 
gress: "  Perhaps  the  great  danger  *  *  of  abuse  in  the  executive  power  lies  lu  the  improper  continuance 
of  bad  men  in  office.  But  the  i>ower  we  contend  for  will  not  enable  him  to  do  this;  for  if  an  unworthy  man 
be  continued  in  oflice  by  an  unworthy  President,  the  House  of  Representatives  can  at  any  time  impeach  him, 
and  the  Senate  can  remove  him  whether  the  President  chooses  or  not.  The  danger  then  consists  merely  in 
this — the  President  cau  displace  from  office  a  man  whoso  merits  reciuire  that  he  should  be  continued  in  it. 
What  will  be  the  motives  which  the  President  can  feel  for  such  abuse  of  his  power  and  the  restraints  that 
operate  to  prevent  it  (  In  the  first  place,  he  will  be  impeachable  by  the  House  before  the  Senate  for  such  an 
act  oi iiialadmiuUtratiun  ;  fnr  1  contend  that  tlie  wanton  removal  of  meritorious  officers  would  subject  him  to 
impeachment  and  removal  from  his  own  high  trust." — (4  Elliott's  Debates,  380.) 

t  A  statute  of  Henry  VIH.  providing  for  the  appointment  of  a  riistos  rolulorum  and  clerk  of  the  peace  for 
the  several, connties  of  England,  provides  that  the  cuslos  shall  hold  his  office  until  removed,  and  the  clerk  of 
the  peace  durunte  le  bene  gcsfi.ril.  It  n-cites  that  ignorant  persons  had  got  iu  by  unfair  means.  And  so  is  the 
tenure  of  judges  iu  England  by  the  Declaration  of  Itight.  The  tenure  durante.  Scv.,  was  introduced  to  inable 
a  removal  to  be  made  for  misbehavior. — (2  Chase's  Trial,  ;i37.)  By  act  of  11!  William  3,  c.  2,  s.  3,  the  coiinnix- 
sion  of  every  judge  runs  "i/iuimdiu  nc  bene  geaserit." — (2  Cha.se's  Trial,  2.55,  336,  342,  38f).)  See  p.  145  Peck's 
Trial,  427,  where  Bilchanau  said :  "Judges  hold  during  good  behavior — oflicial  misbehavior  is  impeachable. 
What  is  misbehavior?  We  are  bouml  to  prove  thai  the  respondent  has  violated  the  Constitution  or  some 
knowu  law  of  the  land.  This  was  the  principle  deduced  from  Chase's  Trial  in  oppositiou  to  the  principle 
*        '        *        that  in  order  to  render  an  officer  impeachable  he  must  be  indictable." 

:Act  of  September  24,  1789,  1  Stat.,  76;  Chase's  Trial,  402 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  131 

is  an  act  committed  or  omitted  in  violation  of  a  puhlin  law,  either  forbidding  or 
commanding  it."* 

The  Constitution  contains  inherent  evidence,  therefore,  that  as  to  judges  they 
should  be  impeachable  Avhen  their  hehavior  is  not  good — and  the  Senate  are 
made  the  exclusive  judges  of  what  is  bad  behavior. 

The  words  "good  behavior"  are  borrowed  from  the  English  laws,  and  have 
been  construed  there  in  a  way  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  impeachment  to  a  wide 
range.  They  were  first  introduced  into  an  English  statute  to  procure  the 
removal  of  officers  who,  on  trial,  might  prove  too  ignorant  to  perform  their 
duties. 

These  general  views  are  sustained  by  the  opinions  of  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution, declared  by  themselves  in  convention,  by  Madison, t  in  the  Virginia 
Convention  of  178S,  and  by  Alexander  Hamilton, |  in  the  Federalist,  who  says 

*  "At  commou  law  an  ordinary  violation  of  a  pnblio  statute,  even  by  one  not  in  office,  though  the  statute 
in  terms  provides  no  punishment,  is  an  indictable  misdemeanor."  (Bishop's  MS.  letter  to  a  member  of  the 
Judiciary  Committee,  citing  1  Bishop  Cr.  Law,  3d  ed. ,  sec.  187,  535.) 

The  term  "misdemeanor"  covers  every  act  of  '^misbehavior,"  in  the  popular  sense. 

"Misdemeanor  iu  office  and  misbehavior  in  office  mean  the  same  thing."    (7  Dane's  Abridgement,  365  ) 

Misbehavior,  therefore,  which  is  mere  negation  of  "good  behavior,"  is  an  express  limitation  of  the  office  of 
a  judge.     (See  North  American  Review  forOctober,  1862.) 

Alexander  Hamilton,  in  discussing  the  judicial  "tenure  of  good  behavior,"  and  the  remedj'  in  cases  of  "  judi; 
ciary  encroachments  on  the  legislative  .authority"  by  pronouncing  laws  unconstitutional,  says  : 

"It  may,  in  the  last  place,  be  observed  that  the  supposed  danger  of  judiciary  encroachments  on  the  legisla- 
tive authority,  \>?liieh  has  been  upon  many  occasions  reitenited,  is,  in  reality,  a  phantom.  Particular  miscon- 
structions and  contraventions  of  the  will  of  the  legislature  may  now  and  then  happen,  but  they  can  never  be  so 
extensive  as  to  amount  to  an  inconvenience,  or  in  any  sensible  degree  toiltt'ect  the  order  of  the  political  system. 
This  may  be  inferred  with  eertainty,  from  the  general  nature  of  the  judicial  power;  from  the  objects  to  which  it 
relates ;  from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  exercised ;  from  its  comparative  weakness ;  and  from  its  'otal  incapa- 
city to  support  its  usurpations  by  force.  And  the  inference  is  greatly  fortified  by  the  consideration  of  the  imr 
portant  constitutional  check  which  the  power  of  instituting  impeachments  in  one  part  of  the  legislative  body, 
and  of  determining  upon  them  in  the  other,  would  give  to  that  body  upon  the  members  of  the  judicial  depart- 
ment. This  is  alone  a  complete  security.  There  never  can  be  dauger  that  the  judges,  by  a  series  of  delibe- 
rate usurpations  on  the  authority  of  the  legislature,  would  hazard  the  united  resentment  of  tlie  body  intrusted 
with  it,  while  this  body  was  possessed  of  the  power  to  punish  them  for  their  presumption  by  degrading  them 
from  their  stations.  While  this  ought  to  remove  all  apprehensions  on  the  subject,  it  affords,  at  the  same  time, 
a  cogent  argument  for  constituting  the  Senate  a  court  for  the  trial  of  impeachments."     (  Federalist,  No.  81.^ 

Impeachment  is  not  merely  nor  necessarily  puju'fJBd  only,  but  it  may,  and  often  must  ha.  protective.  The 
safety  of  the  public  may  demand  its  exercise  in  cases  where  there  has  been  no  intentional  wrong  but  only  a 
mistake  of  judgment.  The  republic  cannot  be  suflfered  to  perish  or  its  great  interests  to  be  put  iu  peril  from 
any  tender  regard  for  individual  feelings  or  errors. 

And  Thomas  Jefferson  evidently  held  that  judges  were  impeachable  for  assumptions  of  power.  (Letter  to 
Mr.  Jarvis,  .September  28,  1820;  aud  see  Jackson's  veto  message  on  the  bauk  bill.) 

t  "  Were  the  President  to  commit  anything  go  atrocious  as  to  summon  only  a  few  States  (to  consider  a 
treaty)  he  would  be  impeached  and  convicted,  as  a  majority  of  the  States  would  be  affected  by  his  misdemeanor." 

Aud  again  : 

"  Mr.  Madison,  adverting  to  Mr.  Mason's  objection  to  the  President's  power  of  pardoning,  s.tid  it  would  be 
extremely  improper  to  vest  it  iu  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  not  much  less  so  to  place  it  in  the  Senate; 
because  numerous  bodies  were  actuated  more  or  less  by  passion,  and  might,  in  the  moment  of  vengeance, 
forget  humanity.  It  was  an  established  practice  in  Massachusetts  for  the  legislature  to  determine  in  such 
ea.ses. 

"  It  was  found,  says  he,  that  two  different  sessions,  before  each  of  which  the  question  came,  with  respect  to 
pardoning  the  delinquents  of  the  rebellion,  were  governed  precisely  by  different  sentimcut's — the  one  would 
execute  with  universal  vengeance,  aud  the  other  would  extend  general  mercy. 

"  There  is  one  security  in  this  case  to  which  gentlemen  may  not  h.ive  adverted :  If  the  President  be  con- 
nected iu  any  suspicious  manner  with  any  persons,  and  there  be  grounds  to  believe  he  will  shelter  himself,  the 
House  of  Representatives  cau  impeach  hira  ;  they  can  remove  him  if  fmiud  guilty  ;  thej^  can  suspend  him 
when  suspected,  and  the  power  will  devolve  on  the  Vice-President.  Should  he  be  suspected  also,  he  may 
likewise  be  suspended  till-he  be  impeached  imd  removed,  and  the  legislature  shall  make  a  temporary  appoint- 
ment. Thi-.  is  a  great  security."  (Debates  of  the  Virginia  Convention,  i)rintedat  the  Enquirer  Press  for 
Richey,  Worsley  &  Augustine  Davis,  1805,  pp.  35:3-4.     11  Howell  stat.  7,  733.) 

I  la  the  Federalist,  No.  Co,  he  says  :  • 

"  The  subjects  of  its  jim^diction  are  those  offences  which  proceed  from  the  misconduct  of  public  men,  or,  in 
other  words,  from  the  abuse  or  violation  of  some  public  trust.  They  are  of  a  nature  which  may,  with  pecu- 
liar propriety,  be  denoinin.ated  politieal,  as  they  relate;  chiefly  to  injuries  done  immediately  to  the  society  itself." 

"  What,"  it  may, be  asked,  "  is  the  true  spirit  of  the  iustitution  itself  ?  Is  it  not  designed  as  a  method  of 
national  inquest  into  the  conduct  of  public  men?  If  this  be  the  design  of  it  who  can  so  properly  be  the 
inquisitors  for  the  nation  as  the  representatives  of  the  nation  themselves  ?  It  is  not  disputed  that  the  power 
of  origiuating  the  inquiry,  or,  in  other  words,  of  preferring  the  impeachment,  ought  to  bi'  lodg'd  in  one  branch 
of  the  legislative  body ;  will  not  the  reasons  which  indicate  the  propriety  of  this  arrangement  .-tiongly  plead 
for  an  admission  of  the  other  branch  of  that  body  to  a  share  of  the  inquiry  ?  The  model  from  ivhich  the  idea 
of  this  institution  has  been  borrowed  pointed  out  that  course  to  the  convention.  In  (ireat  ISi  itaiii  it  is  the 
province  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  prefer  the  impeachuu-nt  and  of  the  House  of  Lords  to  decide  upon  it. 
Several  of  the  State  constitutions  have  followed  the  example.  As  well  the  latter  as  the  former  seem  to  have 
regarded  the  practice  of  impeachments  as  a  bridle  in  the  hands  of  the  legislative  body  upon  the  executive 
servants  of  the  government.     Is  not  this  the  true  light  iu  which  it  is  to  be  regarded »"_ 

To  what  extent  this  writer  contemplated  the  exertion  of  this  power  is  not  left  Lu  doiibt.  In  the  succeeding 
number  of  the  same  commentary  he  observes  : 

"  The  convention  might  with  propriety  have  meditated  the  punishment  of  the  executive  for  a  deviation 
itom  the  instructions  of  the  .'Senate  or  a  want  of  integrity  in  the  conduct  of  the  negotiationa  committed  to 
Um, "  clearly  not  statutory  ofl'euces. 


132  INPEACIIMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

that  "several  of  the  State  constitutions  have  followed  the  example"  of  Great 
Britain.  And  up  to  that  time  the  State  constitutions  had  adopted  the  British 
system  with  only  some  modifications  ;  but  none  of  them  recognizing  the  idea 
that  impeachment  was  limited  to  indictable  acts,  but  all  affirming  "that  the 
subjects  of  this  jurisdiction  were  oftences  of  a  political  nature."  *  Some  of  these 
constitutions  limited  impeachment  to  "mal  and  corrupt  conduct  in  office  ;"  or, 
as  in  the  New  York  constitution  of  1777,  to  "  venal  and  corrupt  conduct  in 
office;"  while  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  discarded  all  these  limita- 
tions, and  gave  the  power  in  the  broadest  terras.  It  is  said  this  provision  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  copied  from  that  of  New  York,  f  If 
so,  the  change  in  phraseology  is  significant. 

These  general  views  are  supported  by  the  elementary  writers,  without 
exception,  up  to  the  last  year. 

Curtis,  in  his  History  of  the  Constitution,  |  says  :  "  Although  an  impeachment 
may  involve  an  inquiry,  whether  a  crime  against  any  positive  law  has  been 
committed,  yet  it  is  not  necessarily  a  trial  for  crime,  nor  is  there  any  necessity, 
in  the  case  of  crimes  committed  by  public  officers,  for  the  institution  of  any 
special  proceeding  for  the  infliction  of  the  punishment  prescribed  by  the  laws, 
since  they,  like  all  other  persons,  are  amenable  to  the  ordinary  juiisdiction  of 
the  courts  of  justice,  in  respect  of  offences  against  positive  law.  The  j^urposes 
of  an  impeachment  lie  wholly  beyond  the  penalties  of  the  statute  or  the  custom- 
ary law.  'Die  object  of  the  proceeding  is  to  ascertain  whether  cause  exists  for 
removijig  a  public  officer  from  office.  Such  a  cause  may  be  found  in  the  fact, 
that  either  in  the  discharge  of  his  office,  or  aside  from  its  functions,  he  has  vio- 
lated a  law,  or  committed  what  is  technically  denominated  a  ciime.  But  a  cause 
for  removal  from  office  may  exist  where  no  offence  against  positive  law  has  been 
committed,  as  where  the  individual  has  from  immorality,  or  imbecility,  or  mal- 
administration become  unfit  to  exercise  the  office.  The  rules  by  which  an 
impeachment  is  to  be  determined  are  therefore  peculiar,  and  are  not  fully 
embraced  by  those  principles  or  provisions  of  law  which  courts  of  ordinary 
jurisdiction  are  required  to  administer." 

*  Thus,  in  that  of  Virginia,  establiKhed  in  1776,  la  seen  this  provigion:  "The  governor,  when  he  is  out 
of  office,  and  others  offending  aguiui-t  tlie  State,  either  by  iniiladministration,  corruption,  or  other  means,  shall 
bo  impeachable  by  the  house  of  delegates."  In  the  same  year,  iu  the  succeeding  mouth,  Delaware  provided 
m  her  constitution  that  "the  President  when  he  is  out  of  office,  and  eighteen  months  thereiifter,  and  all  others 
offending  against  the  State,  either  by  maladministration,  corruption,  or  other  means,  by  which  the  safety  of 
the  commonwealth  may  be  endangered,  shall  be  impeachable  by  the  house  of  assembly."  So,  North  Caro- 
lina, two  months  later,  provided  iu  her  constitution  :  "  The  governor  and  other  officers  offending  against  the 
State  by  violating  any  part  of  this  constitution,  maladministration  or  corruption,  may  be  prosucuted  on  the 
impeachment  of  the  general  asseaibly,  or  presentment  of  the  grand  jury  of  any  court  of  supreme  jurisdic- 
tion in  this  State." 

The  constitution  of  Connecticut  is  stated  to  contain  a  provision  "  to  call  to  account  for  any  misdemeanor 
and  maladniiuistration."  That  of  New  York  provides  :  "Tlie  power  of  impeachiug  all  officers  of  the  State 
for  mal  and  corrupt  conduct  in  their  respective  offices  is  vested  iu  the  representatives  of  the  people  iu  assem- 
bly," and  the  trial  is  declared  to  be  for  "  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  So,  iu  the  elaborate  constitution  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, the  eighth  article  declares  :  "  The  senate  shall  be  a  court  with  full  authority  to  hear  an<l  determiue 
all  impeachments  made;  by  the  house  of  representatives  against  any  officer  or  officers  of  the  commonwealth 
for  misconduct  and  maladministration  in  their  offices."  Hence,  it  will  be  remarked,  that  iu  all  of  the  State 
constitutions  to  which  we  have  had  access,  formed  prior  to  that  of  the  United  States,  tin-  impeachable  offenceg 
are  of  a  nature  which  may  witli  peculiar  propriety  be  denominated  "  political."  In  neither  of  them  are  the 
subjects  of  impeachment  mere  "  statutory  offences."  This  minute  recurrence  to  the  cimstitutious  of  several 
States  will  not  be  deemed  inappropriate  when  it  is  remembered  that  they  are  not  ouly  the  most  authentic  evi- 
dence of  the  public  sense  of  our  country  at  an  early  period,  but  because,  iu  the  formation  of  the  federal  con- 
htitution,  their  provisions  shouhl  have  a  controlling  intiuence  on  the  minds  of  their  delegates  to  the  general 
convention,  seeking  to  commend  it  to  their  adoption  by  engrafting  into  it  parts  of  their  own  systems,  and  thus 
imparting  to  it  the  well-aseeitained  spirit  and  prudence  of  those  who,  if  adopted,  were  to  bo  its  conxtituentti." 
(From  au  able  article  by  John  C.  Hamilton,  esij.) 

t  Vol.  G  Am.  Law  Ueg.  N.  S.  v;77 ;  Whaxton's  Slate  Triab),  287. 

\  Curtis's  Hist,  of  Const.,  2«l-l  ;  .'i  Elliot,  507-,52'.). 

Selden  says:  "Upon  complaints  and  aecusationsof  the  Commons  the  Lords  may  proceod  in  judgment  against 
the  delinquent  of  what  degree  soever  and  what  nature  soever  the  oflence  be.  For  where  the  Commons  com- 
plain the  Lords  do  not  assume  to  themselves  trial  at  common  law.  Neither  do  the  Lords,  at  the  trial  of  a  Com- 
mon impeachment  by  the  Commons,  dccedcrc  dc  jure  siio,  (depart  from  their  own  law.)  For  the  Commons  are 
there  instead  of  a  jury,  and  the  parties  answer,  and  examination  of  witnesses  are  to  be  in  their  presence,  or 
they  to  have  copii's  thereof;  and  judgment  is  not  to  be  given  but  upon  their  dwmnnd,  which  is  instead  of  a 
verdict.  BO  tlie  Lords  do  ouly  judge,  not  try  the  dr;liu(iuout."  (  S«ldou"8  Judicature  iu  Pinliameuts,  London, 
1681,  page  6.) 


IMPEACHMENT   OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  133 

Story  says  :  •  "  Congress  have  unhesitatingly  adopted  the  conclusion  that  no 
previous  statute  is  necessary  to  authorize  an  impeachment  for  any  official  mis- 
conduct. *  *  •  In  the  few  cases  of  impeachment  which  have  hitherto  been 
tried,  no  one  of  the  chaiges  has  rested  upon  any  statutable  misdemeanors.     *     * 

The  reasoning  by  which  the  power  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  punish 
for  contempts  (which  are  breaches  of  privilege  and  offences  not  defined  by  any 
positive  laws)  has  been  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court,  stands  upon  similar 
grounds ;  for  if  the  House  had  no  jurisdiction  to  punish  for  contempts  until  the 
acts  had  been  previously  defined  and  ascertained  by  positive  law,  it  is  clear  that 
the  process  of  arrest  would  be  illegal : "  Denn  v.  Anderson,  6  Wheat.,  204. 

"In  examining  the  parliamentary  history  of  impeachments,  it  will  be  found 
that  many  offences  not  easily  definable  by  law,  and  many  of  a  purely  political 
character,  have  been  deemed  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  worthy  of  this 
extraordinary  remedy."  t 

"  There  are  many  offences,  purely  political,  which  have  been  held  to  be  within 
the  reach  of  parliamentary  impeachments,  not  one  of  which  is,  in  the  slightest 
manner,  alluded  to  in  our  statute  books.  And,  indeed,  political  offences-  are  of 
so  various  and  complex  a  character,  so  utterly  incapable  of  being  defined  or 
classified,  that  the  task  of  positive  lei^islation  would  be  impracticable,  if  it  were 
not  almost  absurd  to  attempt  it.  What,  for  instance,  could  positive  legislation 
do  in  cases  of  impeachment  like  the  charges  against  Warren  Hastings  in  1788  ] 
Resort  then  must  be  had  either  to  parliamentary  practice,  and  the  common  law, 
in  order  to  ascertain  what  are  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors;  or  the  whole 
subject  must  be  left  to  the  arbitrary  discretion  of  the  Senate  for  the  time  being. 
The  latter  is  so  incompatible  with  the  genius  of  our  institutions  that  no  lawyer 
or  statesman  would  be  inclined  to  countenance  so  absolute  a  despotism  of 
opinion  and  practice,  which  might  make  that  a  crime  at  one  time  or  in  one  per- 
son, which  would  be  deemed  innocent  at  another  time  or  in  another  person.  The 
only  safe  guide  in  such  cases  must  be  the  common  law.  *  *  And  however 
much  it  may  fall  in  with  the  political  theories  of  certain  statesmen  and  jurists 
to  deny  the  existence  of  a  common  law  belonging  to  and  applicable  to  the  nation 
in  ordinary  cases,  no  one  has  as  yet  been  hold  enough  to  assert  that  the  power 
of  impeachment  is  limited  to  offences  positively  d'efined  in  the  statute  book  of 
the  Union,  as  impeachable  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  J 

Rawle,  in  his  work  on  the  Constitution,  says  :  "The  delegation  of  important 
trusts  affecting  the  higher  interests  of  society  is  always  from  various  causes 
liable  to  abuse.  The  fondness  frequently  felt  for  the  inordinate  extension  of 
power,  the  iiifluence  of  party  and  of  prejudice,  the  seductions  of  foreign  states, 
or  the  baser  appetite  for  illegitimate  emoluments,  are  sometimes  productions  of 
what  are  not  inaptly  termed  political  offences,  (Federalist,  No.  65,)  which  it 
would  be  difiicult  to  take  cognizance  of  in  the  ordinary  course  of  judicial  pro- 
ceeding. 

"  The  involutions  and  varieties  of  vice  are  too  many  and  too  artful  to  be 
anticipated  by  positive  law."     (Rawle  on  Const.,  200.) 

"  In  general,  those  offences  which  may  be  committed  equally  by  a  private 
person  as  by  a  public  officer  are  not  the  subjects  of  impeachment."     (Id.,  204.) 

"  We  may  perceive  in  this  scheme  one  useful  mode  of  removing  from  office 
him  who  is  unworthy  to  fill  it,  in  cases  where  the  people  and  sometimes  the 
President  himself  would  be  unable  to  accomplish  that  object."     (Id.,  208.) 

Chancellor  Kent,  in  discussing  the  subject  of  impeachment,  says  :  "  The 
Constitution  has  rendered  him  [the  President]  directly  amenable  by  law  for 
maladministration.     The  inviolability  of  any  officer  of  the  government  is  incom- 

*  1  Story  on  Const.,  ^  799.  In  a  note  he  gays:  "It  may  be  supposed  that  the  first  charge  iu  the  articles  of 
impeachment  against  William  Blount  waa  a  statutable  offence ;  but  on  an  accurate  examination  of  the  act  of 
Congress  of  171)t!,  it  will  be  found  not  to  have  been  so." 

1 1  Story  on  Const.,  §  800.     He  proceeds  to  cite  numerous  cases, 

;  1  Story  on  Const.,  §  797. 


134 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


patible  with  tlie  republican  theory  as  well  as  with  the  principles  of  retributive 
justice, 

"  If  the  President  will  use  the  authority  of  his  station  to  violate  the  Consti- 
tution or  law  of  the  land,  the  House  of  Representatives  can  arrest  him  in  his 
career  ])y  resorting  to  the  power  of  impeachment."     (1  Kent's  Com.,  289.) 

Neither  in  Congress  nor  in  any  State  has  any  statute  been  proposed  to  define 
impeachable  crimes  :  so  uniform  has  been  the  opinion  that  none  was  necessary, 
even  in  those  states,  few  in  number,  wheie  common-law  crimes  do  not  exist. 

The  assertion,  "  that*  unless  the  crime  is  specifically  named  in  the  Constitution, 
impeachments,  like  indictments,  can  only  be  instituted  for  crimes  committed 
against  the  statutory  law  of  the  United  States,"  is  a  view  not  yet  a  year  old, 
which  has  not  been  held  at  any  prior  time,  either  in  England  or  America. 

It  would  certainly  seem  clear  that  impeachments  are  not  necessarily  limited 
to  acts  indictable  by  statute  or  common  law,  and  that  it  would  be  impossible 
for  human  prescience  or  foresight  to  define  in  advance  by  statute  the  necessary 
subjects  of  impeachment.  The  Constitution  contemplated  no  such  absurd  impos- 
sibility. It  may  be  said  there  is  danger  in  leaving  to  the  Senate  a  power  so 
undefined.  It  was  because  of  this  danger  that  the  power  has  been  limited  as  it 
is  by  tl'.e  Constitution,  and  experience  has  shown  that  the  limitations  are  more 
than  sufficient. 

The  whole  system  of  common-law  crimes,  as  it  exists  in  England,  and  in 
almost  every  State  of  the  Union,  is  the  result  of  a  judicial  power  equally 
undefined. 

The  system  of  impeachment  is  to  be  governed  by  great  general  principles  of 
right,  and  it  is  less  probable  that  the  Senate  will  depart  from  these,  than  that 
the  whole  legislature  would  in  the  enactment  of  a  law,  or  than  courts  in  estab- 
lishing the  common  law.t 

The  Constitution  contains  inJierent  evidence  that  the  indictahJc  character  of 
an  act  does  not  define  its  impeachable  quality.  It  enuuierates  the  classes  of 
cases  in  which  legislative  power  may  be  exercised,  and  it  defines  the  class  of 

*  Vol.  6  Am.  ,Law  Reg.,  N.  S.,  269. 

tThe  Constitution  has  made  the  Senat^  like  the  House  of  Lords,  sole  judjre  of  wh.it  the  law  is,  assuming 
their  wisdom  to  be  equal  to  that  of  the  common  law  courts.  (2  Halo's  P.  C,  'i^^;  BarcUiy's  Digest,  140  ;  Con- 
stitution, ariiele  one,  section  three.)  This  is  necessarily  so;  for  though  some  statutory  and  common  law  crimen 
are  impeachable,  yet  not  all  of  them  are,  and  the  .Senate  decides  whi^h  are  and  are  not.  It  is  said  if  tlie 
impeachable  crimes  are  not  defin^'d  by  law  the  power  of  impeachment  will  be  undelined  and  clangerous.  Thu 
power  to  determine  impeachable  crimes  by  the  Senate  is  no  more  undefined  than  the  power  of  thi'  eommou 
law  courts  to  determine  couimou  law  crimes.  Impeachment  is  regulated  by  principles  as  well  detined  and  per- 
manently settled  MS  the  fundamental  and  eternal  doctrines  of  right,  reason,  and  justice  pervading  the  parlia- 
mi-ntary  jurisprudenee  of  civilized  nations,  and  like  the  common  law,  it  lias  enuMKi'd  from  priyieval  errors,  and 
adapted  itself  to  an  advanced  civilization.  The  danger  of  iiiiperillins  tlie  safety  of  nations  in  measuring  parlia- 
meutary  law  by  the  rule  which  delines  wrongs  to  individuals  Is  iutinitely  greater  than  the  evils  whieli  can  How 
from  reeogiii/.ing  the  law  of  impeachment  as  a  parliannntary  system  resting  upon  its  own  solid  fouiidalions. 

The  rule  which  allows  impeachments  for  indictal)l(;  acts  enables  the  legislative  di'partment  or  the  Senate 
alone  to  declare  trivial  offences  impeachable  while  the  parliamentary  law  limiting  impeachable  oft'^nces  to  mis- 
demeanors affecting  the  nation  is  less  latitudinarian  and  attended  with  less  danger  of  abuse.  When  impeach- 
ment is  employed  to  remove  officers  for  wilful  violations  of  the  Constitution  or  laws,  for  exercising  the  powers 
of  Congress  or  the  judiciary  for  performing  acts  affecting  the  nation  unauthorized  hy  law.  for  n-tusing  to  exe- 
cute laws  recpiiring  that  duty,  for  u  perversion  of  lawful  powers  to  accomplish  unconstitutional  objects — those 
are — 

"  Offences  as  tangible  and  as  capable  of  being  measured  by  fixed  rules  as  any  felony  defined  in  eriminal  laws." 

And  this  is  as  definite  and  no  less  latitudinarian  than  the  common  law  itself,  which  is  "  the  perfection  of 
reason"  as  def.'rmined  hy  courts.  For  even  in  England  not  all  common  law  offenc'-s  are  impeachable,  but 
only  such  of  tlifui  (along  with  others  not  indictal)le)  as  by  parliamentary  usage  or  popular  sense  rise  to  the 
dignity  of  "high"  misdiMueanors,  and  of  this  tlu^  House  nf  Lords  are  the  sole  judges.  (Feck's  Trial,  10  Soldeu, 
Judicature  in  I'aijiamc-iits,  (i;  2  Hale  R  C,  •27.'> ;  Barclay's  Digest,  140.) 

On  the  trial  of  ,)irl?i-  I'n-scott,  in  .Massachusi-tts,  iu  lS;il,  .Mr.  .Shaw  said:  "The  security  of  our  rightrt 
di'pends  rathir  upon  tlie  general  tenor  and  character  than  upou  particular  provisions  of  our  Constitution. 
The  love  of  freedom  and  justice,  so  deeply  engraven  upon  the  hearts  of  the  peo|)|e,  and  int'TWoven  iu  fho 
whole  textun;  of  our  social  institutions,  a  thorough  and  intelligent  aeipiaintance  with  tle-ir  rights,  and  a  firm 
determination  to  maintain  them,  in  short,  those  moral  ami  intellectual  (lualities  without  which  social  liberty 
cannot  exist,  and  over  which  despotism  can  obtain  no  control,  these  stamp  the  character  and  give  security  to 
the  rights  of  the  free  people  of  this  Cummnnwealth.  *  *  *  Um  it  has  not  beoa,  and  it  cannot  be,  contended 
that,  in  its  deci>ions.and  ailjadicatious,  this  court  is  not  governed  by  established  laws.  These  may  bo  positive 
and  express,  or  they  may  depend  U|)on  reasoning  and  analogy.  It  would  be  idle  to  expect  a  rub'  applicable 
to  every  ease  in  the  text  of  the  statute  book.  Lawsare  founded  on  certain  general  principles  and  the  relations 
of  mi-n  in  society.  It  is  the  province  of  this  court,  as  of  all  other  judicial  tribunals,  to  search  out  and  apply 
these  prineifdes  to  the  particiilar  cases  iu  judgment  before  thorn."  Aud  see  4  Howard's  St.  Trials,  47,  per  Seldeu, 
6  Am.  Law  Keg.,  N.  S.,  264. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  135 

persons  and  cases  to  which  the  judicial  power  extends  ;    but  there  is  no  such 
ennmeration  of  impeachable  cases,  though  there  is  o^ persons. 

In  England  and  some  of  the  states  the  power  of  removal  of  officers  by  the 
executive  on  the  address  or  request  of  the  legislature*  exists,  but  the  Constitution 
made  no  provision  for  this  as  to  any  officer,  manifestly  because  the  power  of 
impeachment  extended  to  every  proper  case  for  removal. 

As  to  the  President  and  Vice-President,  there  is  this  provision,  that  "  Con- 
gress may  by  k\v  provide  for  the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  innhUlty, 

*  *  declaring  what  officer  shall  then  act  *  *  until  the  disability  be 
removed  or  a  President  shall  be  elected."     (Article  2,  section  1.) 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  regarded  the 
power  of  impeachment  as  a  means  of  defending  "  the  community  against  the 
incapacity^'  of  officers.  This  clause  of  the  Constitution  recognized  the  same 
view,  article  2,  section  1 :  "  Congress  may  by  law  provide  for  the  case  of  *  * 
inability,  both  of  the  President  and  Vice-President,  declaring  what  officer  shall 
then  act  as  President,  and  such  officer  shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disability 
be  removed  or  a  President  shall  be  elected." 

This  and  the  power  of  impeachment  are  the  only  modes  of  getting  rid  of  offi- 
cers whose  inability  from  insanity  or  otherwise  renders  them  unfit  to  hold  office, 
and  whose  every  official  act  will  necessarily  be  misdemeanor.  As  to  the  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President,  it  was  necessary  to  give  Congress  the  power  to  desig- 
nate a  successor,  and  so  to  determine  the  disability.  As  to  all  other  officers, 
the  Constitution  or  laws  define  the  mode  of  designating  a  successor,  and  it  is 
left  to  the  impeaching  power  to  remove  in  cases  of  insanity  or  misdemeanor  aris- 
ing from  that  or  other  cause.  It  cannot  be  supposed  the  whole  nation  must 
suft'er  without  remedy,  if  the  whole  Supreme  Court  or  other  officers  should 
become  utterly  disabled  from  the  performance  of  their  duties.  Such  an  occur- 
rence is  within  the  range  of  possibility,  if  not  probability. 

In  our  system  it  *is  utterly  imposible  to  apply  any  test  of  common  law  or 
statutory  criminality.  The  Supreme  Court,  without  much  consideration,  has 
determined  that  the  national  courts  have  never  been  clothed  with  jurisdiction  of 
common-law  crimes.t 

*  Removal  on  the  addresB  of  hink  bouses  of  Parliament  is  provided  for  in  the  Act  of  Settlement,  3 
HiHllani,  262.  In  the  convention  which  framed  our  national  Constitution,  June  2,  1787,  Mr.  John  Dickinson, 
of  Delaware,  moved  "  that  the  Executive  be  made  removable  by  the  national  legislature  on  the  request  of  a 
majority  of  the  legislatures  of  individual  States."  Delaware,  alone,  voted  for  tliis,  and  it  was  rejected. 
Impeachment  was  deemed  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  cover  every  proper  case  for  removal. 

t  The  reason  which  denies  jurisdiction  of  common-law  crimes  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States  does  ■Jiot  apply 
to  impeachments. 

By  the  Constitution  the  tri.al  for  crimes  must  be  had  in  the  State  and  district  where  committed.  (Article  6, 
Amrudmeuts.)  By  the  judiciary  act  of  September  24,  1789,  the  Supreme  Court  is  restricted  to  holding 
Ki-ssions  at  Washington.  (1  Statutes  at  Large,  73.)  By  the  Constitution  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States  is  vested  in  the  Supreme  Court  and  such  inferior  courts  as  Congress  may  establish.  (Article  3,  section 
1  ;  article  1,  section  10. 

It  was  held  as  early  as  1812  that  the  circuit  and  district  courts  of  the  United  States,  being  the  "inferior 
courts"  established  by  Congress,  could  exercise  no  common-law  criminal  jurisdiction.  Tliis  doctrine  was 
reaffirmed  in  1816  by  a  divided  court,  and  has  never  been  authoritatively  decided  since.  (United  States  vs. 
Hudson,  7  Cranch,  32;  United  States  vs.  Corlidge,  1  Wheaton,  415;  1  Gallis,  Reports,  488;  United  States  vs. 
Lancaster,  2  McLean's  Reports,  431;  Washington  Circuit  Court  Reports,  84;  United  States  vs.  Ravara,  2 
Dallas  297;  United  St.ates  vs.  Worrall,  2  Dallas,  384  ;  United  States  vs.  Maurice,  2  Brock.,  96 ;  United  States 
vt.  Kew  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Woodbridge  &  Miuot,  401 ;  United  States  vs.  Babcock,  4  McLean,  113-115.) 

This  ruling  has  been  disapprcjved  by  the  ablest  commentators  on  constitutional  and  criminal  law — by  Story, 
and  Rawle,  and  Bishop,  and  Wharton.  (I  Bishop's  Ciiminal  Law,  third  edition,  163,  [20; J  act  of  Congress 
of  September  24,  1789,  sections  9-11 ;  Statutes  1842,  chapter  188,  section  3;  Du  Ponceau  on  Jurisdiction.) 

The  denial  pf  common  law  criminal  jurisdiction  in  the.se  inferior  courts  rests  solely  on  the  reasons  that  such 
tribun.ils  being  created  not  hy  the  Cons'titulion,  but  by  act  of  Congress,  they — 

'•  Possess  no  jurisdiction  but  what  is  given  tliera  by  the  power  that  creates  them;"  and  that — 

'•  There  exists  no  definite  criterion  of  distribution  "[of  jurisdiction]  between  the  district  and  circuit  courts  of 
the  same  district." 

And  that  common  law — 

"Jurisdiction  has  not  been  conferred  by  any  legislative  act." 

And  it  is  said  that  the  Supreme  Court  almie — 

"Possesses  jurisdiction  derived  immediately  from  the  Constitution,  and  of  which  the  legislative  power 
cannot  deprive  it."     (7  Cranch,  33.) 

Where,  therefore,  a  common  law  jurisdiction  is  conferred  by  the  Constitution  on  a  court  created  by  that 
instrument,  it  is  one  "of  which  the  legislative  power  cannot  deprive  it."     (7  Cranch,  33.) 

And  this  is  precisely  what  the  Constitution  has  done  as  to  impeachments ;  it  lias  created  the  tribunal  for 
their  trial — the  Senate ;  it  has  given  that  body  jurisdiction  of  all  "  crimes  and  misdemeanors"  impeachable  by 


\6b  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

When  tho  Con?titntion  was  adopted  all  the  States  recognized  common-law 
crimes,  and  those  added  since  do  ao  with  few  exceptions.  Bat  there  is  some- 
thing peculiar  to  each  and  different  from  all  others  in  its  common -law  crimes, 
growing  out  of  the  rulings  of  judges  or  its  condition,  and  iu  all  statutes  have 
made  changes,  so  that  no  two  States  recognize  the  same  crimes. 

The  Constitution  authorizes  Congress  "  to  provide  for  the  punishment  of 
count  'rfeiting  tlie  securities  and  current  coia  of  the  United  States.  *  *  * 
To  define  and  punish  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on  the  high  seas,  and 
offences  against  the  law  of  nations,"  hut  nowhere  declares  they  may  define 
impeachable  crimes,  for  the  very  good  reason  th.it  common  parliamentary  law, 
subject,  like  t!ie  common  law,  to  be  moulded  to  circumstances  and  adapted  to 
times,  had  already  suthciently  defined  them.  Congress  cannot  by  any  law 
abridge  the  right  of  the  House  to  impeach  or  the  Senate  to  try. 

When  the  Constitution  confers  on  the  House  the  "sole  jjower  of  impeach- 
ment," and  on  the  Senate  "  the  sole  power  of  trial,"  these  are  independent 
powers,  not  to  be  controlled  by  the  joinf.  opinion  of  the  two  houses,  previously 
incorporated  into  a  law.*  Suppose  such  a  law  passed.  It  cannot  be  repealed 
over  a  veto  except  by  a  two-thirds  vote  in  each  house.  Yet  a  majority  may 
impeach;  and,  after  the  veto  of  a  repealing  law,  can  that  majority  be  denied  the 
constitutional  privilege  conferred  on  them  ? 

"  Treason,  bribery,  and  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  "  are  of  course 
impeachable.  Treason  and  bribery  are  specifically  named.  But  "  other  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors"  are  just  as  fully  comprehended  as  though  each  was 
specified.  The  Senate  is  made  the  sole  judge  of  what  they  are.  There  is  no 
revising  court.  The  Senate  determines  in  the  light  of  parliamentary  law. 
Congress  cannot  define  or  limit  by  law  that  which  the  Constitution  defines  in 
two  cases  by  enumeration,  and  in  others  by  classification,  and  of  which  the 
Senate  is  sole  judge  t  It  has  never  been  j)retended  that  treason  and  bribery 
would  not  be  impeachable  if  not  made  criminal  by  statute,  or  so  recognized  by 
national  common  law.  They  are  impeachable  because  enumerated.  Other 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  are  equally  designated  by  classification. 

Suppose  the  Constitution  had  declared  "  that  all  persons  committing  'ti'eason, 
bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors'  shall  be  punished  by  indict- 
ment in  the  courts  of  the  United  States,"  can  it  be  doubted  that  every  crime 
and  misdemeanor  recognized  by  the  common  law  would  be  the  subject  of  indict- 
ment ?  "  This  would  be  by  force  of  the  Constitution  employing  the  words 
crimes  and  misdemeanors ;  for  these  are  words  known  to  the  common  law,  and 
it  is  a  universal  principle  of  interpretation,  acted  on  in  all  the  courts,  that  a 
common-law  term  employed  in  conferring  jurisdiciiou  on  courts  is  to  bear  its 
common-law  meaning." 

Now,  when  the  (jonstitution  says  that  all  civil  officers  shall  be  removable  oa 
impeachment  for  high  crim(;s  and  misdemeanors,  and  the  Senate  shall  have  the 
sole  power  of  trial,  the  jurisdiction  is  conferred,  and  its  scope  is  defined  by 
common  parliamentary  law.| 

The  national  courts  do  not  take  jiu-isdiction  of  common-law  crimes,  not 
because  common-law  crimes  do  not  exist,  but  because  their  jurisdiction  is  only 
such  as  is  expressly  conferred  on  them,  and  no  statute  has  conferred  the  juris- 

_ 

parliamentary  nxage,  and  no  law  can  limit  it.  And  this  view  lias  boon  suxtniuoil  by  Story,  and  Rawlo,  and 
Kent,  after  and  in  view  of  Ihu  dL-cii-ioUH  referred  to.     (li  Aniericiiu  Law  Regixter,  65fi.) 

At  tho  time  the  Coustimtion  wim  iidnpted,  and  e  vor  since  in  I'^iif^laiid  and  all  tlio  original  States  of  the  Union, 
what  is  known  as  the  " commuii  law"  and  "  coninion-hnv  crimes"  existed,  unil  yet  exist,  in  addition  to  crimoH 
dedned  by  statute;  and  this  is  so  iji  all  the  States  except  Oliio.  ami  perhaps  two  or  three  others. 

*  "Till!  Parliament  cannot  by  any  act  restrain  the  power  of  a  subsennent  I'arliameut."  (4  lust.,  42;  5  Com. 
Dig.,.'t:il.) 

t"  Th(!/jccrsnre  ;H(/^M«//n(o  as  well  as  of  fact."  (2  llule's,  P.  C.,-7.3.  IJiiroIay'd  Digest,  140.)  They  there- 
fore are  not  governed  liy  tin-  indictrible  character  cif  an  act.  In  fact,  as  the  highest  court  they  make  not  only 
imrliainentary  law,  Init  ttie  law  for  the  courts.     (Kegina  r.  O'Connell.) 

t  Inipeaohalile  misdeniean^is  are  determined  by  tlie  Senate  joHt  as  each  house  of  Congress  and  the  courts 
having  the  Jurisdiction  to  pu  p  isL  for  coutemptsdeturmiue  what  acts  or  neglect  constitute  them.    (,7  Crauch,  3:^0.) 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  137 

diction.  Bnt  iu  the  District  of  Columbia,  under  national  jurisdiction,  common- 
law  crimps  and  jurisdiction  of  them  in  the  courts  do  exist.* 

In  addition  to  this,  there  are  crimes  exclusively  of  national  jurisdiction,  and 
others  exclusively  of  State  cognizance.  The  murder  of  citizens  in  a  State  is 
not  and  cannot  be  made  criminal  by  act  of  Congress  where  it  is  not  perpetrated 
in  the  denial  of  a  national  right.  The  States  alone  provide  for  this  and  many 
other  offences.  And,  in  the  States  not  recognizing  common-law  crimes,  they 
mav  omit  to  make  homicide  a  penal  offence  as  to  Indians,  negroes,  or  others,  if 
tlie'  legislature  so  determine,  iu  the  absence  of  a  law  of  Congress  similar  to  the 
'•  Civil  Rights  "  act.t 

If  no  act  is  impeachable  which  is  not  made  criminal,  then  its  criminality  must 
depend — 

1.  On  an  act  of  Congress  defining  crimes  ;  or, 

2.  On  acts  of  State  legislatures  defining  crimes  ;  or, 

3.  On  the  definition  of  common-law  crimes  in  the  States  ;  or, 

4.  On  the  common-law  crimes  existing  iu  England  when  the  Constitution  was 
adopted. 

It  is  quite  clear  that  national  law  in  some  form  must  control  it,  since  "  the 
United  States  have  no  concern  with  any  but  their  own  laws."| 

The  national  government  is  complete  in  itself,  with  powers  which  neither 
depend  on  nor  can  be  abridged  by  State  laws.§ 

If,  then,  impeachment  is  limited  to  acts  made  criminal  by  a  statute  of  Con- 
gress, an  officer  of  the  United  States  cannot  be  impeached,  though  he  should 
go  into  tlie  "dominion  of  Canada"  or  the  "republic  of  Mexico,"  and  there  stir 
up  insurrection,  or  be  guilty  of  violating  all  the  laws  of  the  land  ;  or  if  he 
should  go  into  a  State  and  violate  all  of  its  laws.|!  If  so,  a  highway  robber 
may  be  President,  and  he  is  exempt  from  impeachment ! 

*  '■  Common-law  crimes  do  exist,  they  are  indictable,  and  j arisdb  tion  of  them  has  ezisled  in  the,  courts  of  the 
United  States  for  two-thirds  of  a  century  in,  the  District  of  Columbia."  (\  Bishop  ou  Criminal  Law,  section  lt)7, 
[•-'•-';]  Du  Ponceau  ou  Jurisdiction,  6i-73;  Kendall  vs.  United  States,  12  Peters,  524-613;  United  States  vs. 
Watkins,  3  Crauch,  441.) 

The  highest  authority  on  criminal  law  in  this  country  says: 

"  There  must  in  reason  and  in  legal  principle  be  in  those  localities  where  State  power  is  unknown  common- 
law  crimes  against  the  Uni  ed  States.  Especially  this  exception  must  in  reason  extend  to  all  matters  which 
concern  our  intercourse  with  foreign  as  well  as  to  all  local  tr.'insactions  beyond  the  territorial  limits  of  the 
several  States.  The  law  of  nations  and  the  law  of  the  admiralty  concerning  both  civil  and  criminal  things 
would  seem  therefore  to  have  been  made  United  States  common  law." 

*  *  *  *  "And  so  the  United  States  tribunals  would  appear  to  have  common  law  cognizance  of 
offences  upon  the  high  seas  not  defined  by  statutes,  and  of  all  other  offences  within  the  proper  cognizance  of 
the  criminal  courts  of  a  nation,  committed  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular  State."  1  Bishop  on 
Criminal  Law,  section  165,  [21.] 

The  act  of  Congress  of  February  27,  1801,  extended  and  continued  in  force  over  the  District  the  common 
and  statute  law  of  Maryland  where  common-law  crimes  existed,  and  organized  a  circuit  court  with  the  juris- 
diction conferred  on  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States  by  section  eleven  of  the  act  of  February  1.3,  1801. 
(2  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  92;  2  Statutes,  103-105,  sections  1-3.) 

The  criminal  court  organized  by  act  of  July  7,  183S,  had  the  same  criminal  jurisdiction.     (5  Statutes,  306.) 

The  supri-me  court  of  the  District,  organized  by  act  of  March  3,  1863,  has  the  same  jurisdiction  of  the  prior 
courts  thereby  abolished.     (12  Statutes,  section  3,) 

That  jurisdiction  is  conferred  in  these  words  : 

"That,"  *  *  *  *  "said  courts"  *  •  *  *  "ghall  have  cognizance  of  all  crimes 
and  offences  cognizable  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States."    (2  Statutes,  92,  act  February  13,  1801.) 

tActof  April  y,  1866,  14  Stat.,  27. 

;  "  It  wa.<  said  by  one  of  the  counsel  thai  the  offence  must  be  a  breach  cither  of  the  common  law,  a  State 
1.1W,  or  a  law  of  the  United  States,  and  tliat  no  lawyer  could  speak  of  a  misdemeanor  but  as  an  act  violating 
gome  one  of  these  laws.  This  doctrine  surely  is  not  warranted,  for  the  government  of  the  United  States  have 
uo  concern  with  any  l)ut  their  own  laws.  *  *  *  But  asa  member  of  the  House  of  Repnsentativea, 
and  acting  as  a  manager  of  an  impeachment  before  the  highest  court  in  the  nation,  appointed  to  try  the  highest 
otKcers  of  the  government,  when  1  speak  of  a  misdemeanor  I  mean  an  aot  of  official  misconduct,  a  violation  of 
official  dut}-.  whether  it  be  a  proceeding  against  a  positive  law  or  a  proceeding  unwarranted  by  law."  (For 
Nicholson  arguendo,  2  Chase's  Trial,  34U  ;  per  Kodney,  387. 

5  Weston  vs.  City  Council  of  Charleston,  2  Peters,  449 ;  McCulloch,  vs.  Maryland,  4  "Wheat.,  316;  Oaborn  vs. 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  9  Id.,  738. 

II  Mr.  Rodney,  in  the  argument  of  Chaae's  trial,  said:  ""When  gentlemen  talk  of  an  indictment  being  a 
nece.-sary  substratum  of  an  impeachment,  I  should  be  glad  to  be  informed  in  what  court  it  must  be  supported. 
In  the  courts  of  the  United  States  or  in  the  state  courts  ?  If  in  the  state  courts,  then  in  which  of  them  ;  or  pro- 
vided it  can  be  supported  in  any  of  them,  will  the  act  warrant  an  impeachment  ?  If  an  indictment  must  lie  in 
the  courts  of  the  United  States,  in  the  long  catalogue  of  crimes  there  are  a  very  few  which  an  officer  might  not 
commit  with  impunity.    He  might  be  guilty  of  treason  against  an  individual  State  ;  of  murder,  arson,  forgery, 


138  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

It  is  not  possible  that  a  position  so  monstrous  was  intended  by  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution.  Nor  can  the  criminal  statutes  or  common  law  of  the  States 
limit  or  regulate  national  impeachable  offences.  The  fact  that  each  State  differs 
from  all  others  in  its  laws  renders  this  impossible.  It  never  could  have  been 
designed  to  control  the  national  power  of  impeachment  by  State  laws,  ever 
varying  and  conflicting  as  they  are.* 

If  impeachments  were  limited  in  England  to  indictable  offences,  as  they  never 
have  been,  it  is  manifest  no  such  rule  can  be  adopted  here,  for  we  have  no  uni- 
form and  single  standard  of  the  common  law  as  there. 

And  as  the  Supreme  Court  has  determined  that  the  common-law  crimes  do 
not  exist  in  our  national  system,  it  cannot  be  supposed  they  are  more  applicable 
to  the  Senate  than  to  our  ordinary  courts.  We  can,  therefons  safely  adopt  the 
remark  of  "  the  great  Selden"  on  the  impeachment  of  Ratclifte : f  "It  were  better| 
to  examine  this  matter  according  to  the  rules  and  foundations  of  tkis  house  f^ 
that  is,  upon  the  great  principles  of  parliamentary  law  adapted  to  our  condition 
and  circumstances,  as  modified  by  the  Constitution,  giving  it  a  construction  equal 
to  every  emergency  which  may  call  its  powers  into  exercise,  and  giving  in  its 
interpretation  full  efix'ct  in  constitutional  forms  to  the  maxim  it  was  designed  to 
make  effectual — that  the  safety  of  the  republic  is  the  supreme  law."§ 

If  we  adopt  the  test  that  an  act  to  be  impeachable  must  be  indict^ible  at  com- 
mon law,  the  Constitution  will  be  practically  nullified  on  this  subject. 

It  is  a  rule  of  the  common  law,  "that  judges  of  record  are  freed  from  all 
presentations  whatever  except  in  Parliament,  where  they  may  be  punished  for 
anything  done  by  them  in  such  courts  as  judges."  || 

Bishop  declares  that  at  common  law,  "  the  doctrine  appears  to  be  sufficiently 
established,  that  legislators,  the  judges  of  our  highest  courts,  and  of  all  courts 
of  record  acting  judicially,  jurors,  and  probably  such  of  the  high  officers  of  each 
of  tlie  governments  as  are  intrusted  with  responsible  discretionary  duties,  are 
not  liable  to  an  ordinary  criminal  process,  like  an  indictment,  for  their  official 
doings,  however  corrupt:"   1  Bishop's  Crim.  Law,  915  [36:2  ] 

"  At  common  law,  an  ordinary  violation,  of  a  i^fMic  statute  by  one  not  in 
office,  though  the  statute  iu  terms  provides  no  punishment,  is  an  indictable  mis- 
demeanor:"   1  Bishop,  535  [187. J 

And  a  similar  violation  by  inferior  officers  was  an  indictable  misdemeanor. 

and  perjury  in  varioug  forma,  without  beinp  amenable  to  the  federal  jurisdiction,  and  uule88  he  could  be 
indicti'd  before  them  he  could  not  be  impeached."     (2  Chase's  Trial,  389.) 

The  dortriac  thnt  ndtliiiio-  is  impeai-hnblt  viiUss  indiclahlc  hy  act  of  Congress  is  impracticable. 

If  only  offences  imlietahle  by  art  of  Congress  iue  iiii|jeacliiible,  tlie  President  and  all  civil  ofticers  will  escape 
inipeacliinent  for  many  of  the  highest  crimes.  Murder,  arson,  robbery,  and  other  crimes  committed  in  ii  State 
are  indictable  by  State  laws,  but  cannot  be  maile  so  by  act  of  Congress. 

*Iu  the  argnuienf  of  Chase's  trial,  Mr.  Uodney  said:  "Are  we  then  to  resort  to  the  errinp  data  of  the  dif- 
ferent States?  In  New  Ilainpsliiie  drunkenness  may  be  an  indictal>le  offence,  but  not  in  another  State.  Shall 
a  Ij'uited  States  judge  be  impearheil  and  removed  for  getting  intoxicated  in  New  Hampshire,  when  he  may 
drink  as  he  pleases  in  other  States  witli  impunity?  In  some  States  witchciaft  is  a  heinous  offence,  which  sut)- 
jects  the  unfortuiiati'  person  to  iiidicluieiit  and  punishment ;  in  other  States  it  is  unknown  as  a  crime.  A  great 
varie'y  of  case's  mitjhl  be  put  to  expose  the  fulhiey  of  tlie  iirineiiile,  and  to  prove  how  improper  it  wouhl  be  for 
this  court  to  be  governed  by  the  practice  of  the  iljlfereut  .Stales.  Tlie  variation  of  such  u  compass  is  toi  great 
for  It  to  be  relied  on.  This  honorable  body  must  have  a  stanilard  of  their  own,  which  will  admit  of  uo  change 
or  deviatltm."     (2  Chase's  Trial,  38'J.) 

t  Vol.  6.  Am.  Law  Reg.,  N.  S.,  2(J4.    4  Howard's  St.  Tr.,  47. 

J  A  minister  is  answerable  for  the  justice,  the  hnnestij.  the  tilililyot  all  measures  emanating  from  the  Crown, 
as  well  as  for  flieir  Ligalily ;  and  thus  the  e.Kecutive  administration  is,  or  ought  to  be,  snl)ordinate,  in  all  gn-at 
matters  of  policy,  to  the  superintoudeuco  and  virtual  control  of  the  two  houses  of  I'arliam'^ut.  c~  llaliam'8 
Const.  History,  550.) 

§  "It  may  be  alleged  that  the  power  of  Impeachment  belongs  to  the  House  of  Uepresentatives,  and  that  with 
a  view  to  the  exercise  of  this  power  tliat  honse  have  the  right  to  investigate  tlie  conduct  of  all  public  of1icer< 
under  the  government.  This  is  chi'i'rl'iilly  admitted.  In  such  a  case  titr  safily  of  the  rrpuhlic  would  he  Ilia 
«j/prcm/; /djr;  and  the  power  of  the  House  in  the  pursuit  of  this  oliject  wouM  penetrate  into  the  most  secret 
reccsHi-s  of  the  exi'cnlive  department."     (I'resiileiit  I'olk's  Message,  Jour.  Ho.  Uep.,  SiHh  Cong..  Istsess.,  693.) 

"  Salus  populi  sii],rema  ler.:"  liroom'H  Legal  Miixiins;  JIlouiU's  Trial,  Whart.  St.  Tr.,  300,  per  Blouut ; 
Prescott's  Trial,  181,  per  Shaw;  contra,  Blake,  IHi. 

Ill  Hawkins  193,  ch  73,  ^  fi;  1  Salk.  396;  2  Wooddeson  596,  355;  Jacob's  Law  Die,  tit.  Judges;  12  Coke 
2.5-ti;  Hammond  v.  Howell,  2  Mod.  218;  Floyd  v.  Harhrr,  12  Co.  23-5.  "The  doctrine  which  holds  a  judge 
exempt  from  a  civil  suit,  or  indictment  for  any  act  doni>  or  omitted  to  l)e  doiu'  by  him  sitting  iis  a  judge,  has  a 
deep  root  in  the  common  law,"  per  Kent:  Yatesv.  jMnsing,  5.1<ihiis.  2'.tl ;  9  Id.,  \VX>:  Cuuninglinm  v.  Ihic.ldcw, 
8  Cow.,  178;  Peek's  Trial,  492;  2  Chase's  Trial,  .389.  Hnl  sei'  the  ruling  of  Chief  Justice  Shippcu,  rei'orrud  to 
in  Addison's  (I'a.)  Trial,  70;  1  Bishop  on  Crim.  Law,  915  [3ti2;J  4  Bluckat,  121. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE  PRESIDENT.  139 

"  If  a  public  officer  intrusted  with  definite  poAvers,  to  be  exercised  for  the 
benefit  of  the  community,  wickedly  abuses  or  fraudulently  exceeds  them,  he  is 
punishable  by  indictment,  tliou<;h  no  injurious  effects  result  to  auy  individual 
from  his  misconduct:"    U'hart.  Crira.  Law,  §  2514.  ^ 

"  "Whatever  mischievously  affc-cts  the  person  or  property  of  another,  or  openly 
outrages  decency,  or  disturbs  public  order,  or  is  injurious  to  public  morals,  or  is 
a  breach  of  official  duty,  when  done  corruptly  is  the  subj(!ct  of  indictment:" 
What.  §  3. 

It  may  be  said  the  immunity  of  a  j«dge  from  indictment,  for  his  official  acts 
at  common  law,  is  placed  on  "grounds  of  public  policy,  to  secure  his  independ- 
ence, and  that  it  is  the  indictable  character  of  the  act,  if  done  by  a  private 
individual,  which  gives  jurisdiction  by  impeachment.  But  even  this  proves  that 
personal  liability  to  an  indictment  is  no  test  of  impeachability .  And  in  the  nature 
of  things  official  acts  cannot  be  done  by  private  individuals,  so  that  the  indicta- 
ble character  of  an  act  is  no  test  of  its  impeachability ;  and  no  such  test  could 
have  entered  into  the  minds  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution. 

It  is  a  rule  of  interpretation,  that  a  law  or  an  instrumeht  is  not  to  be  construed 
80  as  to  make  its  "  effects  aud  consequences  "  absurd,  if  its  language  may  be 
fairly  understood  otherwise. 

To  permit  all  acts  to  escape  impeachment  unless  indictable  at  common  law,* 
would  lead  to  consequences  the  most  ruinous  and  absurd,  t 

If  a  judge  should  persistently  hear  the  arguments  of  one  party  to  causes 
privately  and  out  of  court,  the  evil  would  become  so  intolerable  in  an  officer 
holding  for  s^ood  behavior  that  he  should  be  removed. 

If  the  President  should  hold  out  promises  of  offices  of  honor  and  trust  to  the 
friends  of  senators  to  influence  their  votes,  the  consequences  might  be  so  per- 
nicious and  corrupting,  especially  in  an  hour  of  national  peril,  when  a  single 

*0n  the  trial  of  Chase  Mr.  Nicholson  said:  You,  Mr.  President,  as  Vice-President  of  the  United  States, 
together  with  the  .Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  Chief  Justice,  and  the  Attorney  General,  as  commissioners 
of  the  sinking  fund,  have  annually  at  your  disposal  .$8,000,000,  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  national  debt.  If 
instead  of  applying  it  to  this  public  use,  you  should  divert  it  to  another  channel,  or  convert  it  to  your  own 
private  uses,  I  ask  if  there  is  a  man  in  the  world  who  would  hesitate  to  say  that  you  ought  to  be  impeached 
for  ttiis  misconduct.  And  yet  there  is  no  court  in  this  country  in  which  you  could  be  indicted  for  it.  Nay,  sir, 
it  would  amount  to  nothing  more  than  a  breach  of  trust,  and  would  not  be  indictable  under  the  favorite  com- 
mon law. 

"  If  a  judge  should  order  a  cause  to  be  tried  with  11  jurors  only,  surely  he  might  be  impeached  for  it,  and  yet 
I  believe  there  is  no  court  in  which  he  could  be  indicted.'"     (2  Chase's  Trial,  Si9.) 

t  On  Chase's  Trial  Mr.  Rodney  said:  "I  think  I  can  put  *  *  striking  cases  of  misconduct  in  a  judge  for 
which  it  must  be  admitted  that  an  impeachment  will  lie,  though  no  indictment  [at  common  law]  could  be 
maintained."  He  puts  the  eases:  if  a  judge,  at  the  time  appointed  for  court,  "should  appear  and  open  the 
court,  and  notwithstanding  there  was  pressing  business  to  be  done,  he  should  proceed  knowingly  and  wilfully 
to  adjourn  it  until  the  next  stated  period.  '  *  *  "  .Suppose  he  proceeded  in  the  despatch  of  business,  aud 
from  prejudice  against  one  party,  or  favor  to  his  antagonist,  he  ordered  on  the  trial  of  a  cause  though  legal 
ground  fcr  postponement." 

"If  when  the  jury  return  to  the  bar  to  give  the  verdict,  he  should  knowingly  receive  the  verdict  Of  a 
majority." 

"  Were  a  judge  to  entertain  the  suitors  with  a  farce  or  a  comedy  instead  of  hearing  their  causes,  and  turn  a 
jester  or  buffoon  on  the  bench,  I  presume  he  would  subject  himself  to  an  impeachment."     (2  Chase's  Trial,  390.) 

Mr.  Harper,  for  the  defence,  practically  abandoned  the  idea  that  an  indictable  offence  wiis  necessary.  He 
said  :  "  There  are  reasons  whicli  appear  to  me  unanswerable  in  favor  of  the  0[>iuiou  that  no  offence  is  impeach- 
able unless  it  be  also  the  proper  subject  of  an  indictment.  *  *  I  can  suppose  cases  where  a  judge  onght  to 
be  impeached  for  acts  which  I  am  not  prepared  to  declare  indictable  [at  common  law.]  Suppose,  for  instance, 
that  a  judge  should  constantly  omit  to  hold  co«rt,  or  should  habitually  attend  so  short  a  time  each  day  as  to 
render  it  impossible  to  despatch  the  business."     (2  Chase's  Trial,  So.x) 

Mr.  Randolph  said  :  "  The  President  of  the  United  States  has  a  qualified  negative  on  all  bills  passed  by  the 
two  houses  of  Congress.  '*  *  Let  us  suppose  it  exercised  indiseriminatelj'  on  every  act  presented  for  his 
acceptance.  This  surely  would  be  an  abuse  of  his  constitutional  power  richly  deserving  impeachment  ;  and 
yet  no  man  will  pretend  to  say  it  is  au  indictable  offence.''  (2  Chase's  Trial,  452;  WicUliffe's  argument  on 
Peck's  Trial,  311.) 

On  Peck's  trial,  Mr.  Wickliffe  put  additional  eases:  "Suppose  a  judge  under  the  influence  of  political  feel- 
ing shall  award  to  his  favorite  a  new  trial  *  *  against  known  law,  would  this  be  an  indictable  offence  ?" 

"  Suppose  a  judge  *  *  shall  labor  for  two  hours  in  abuse  upon  an  uuoffendiug  citizen  whom  he  has  dragged 
before  him."     (Peck's  Trial,  310.) 

"  If  a  head  of  a  department  should  divert  his  power  and  patronage  for  his  personal  or  political  aggrandize- 
ment."    (Id.,  310.) 

On  Peck's  trial,  Mr.  Buchanan  said  :  "  The  abuse  of  a  power  which  has  been  given  may  be  as  criminal  as 
the  usurpation  of  a  power  which  has  not  been  granted.  Suppose  a  man  to  be  indicted  for  an  assault  and  bat- 
tery. He  is  tried  and  found  guilty  ;  and  the  judge,  without  any  circumstances  of  peculiar  aggravation  having 
been  shown,  fines  him  $1,000,  and  commits  him  to  prison  for  a  year.  Now,  although  the  judge  may  possess 
the  power  to  line  and  imprison  for  this  offence  at  his  discretion,  would  not  this  punishment  be  such  au  abuse 
of  judicial  di.>-cretion,  and  afford  such  evidence  of  the  tyrannical  aed  arbitrary  exercise  of  power  as  would 
justify  the  House  of  Representatives  in  voting  au  impeachment?"     (Peck's  Trial,  427.) 


140 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


vote  miglit  deciile  the  life  of  the  government,  that  the  safety  of  the  republic 
would  demand  impeachment.  Such  a  President  would  violate  his  oath  faith- 
fully to  execute  his  duties. 

There  are  many  breaches  of  trust  not  amounting  to  felonies,  yet  so  monstrous 
as  to  render  those  guilty  of  them  totally  unfit  for  office. 

Nor  is  it  always  necessary  that  an  act  to  be  impeachable  must  violate  a  posi- 
tive law.  There  are  many  misdemeanors,  in  violation  of  official  oaths  and  of 
duty  alike  shocking  to  the  moral  sense  of  mankind  and  repugnant  to  the  pure 
administration  of  office,  that  may  violate  no  positive  law.* 

The  indiscHminate  veto  of  all  bills  by  the  President,  his  retaining  in  office 
men  subject  to  his  removal,  knowing  them  to  be  utterly  incapable  of  performing 
the  duties  of  their  office,  and  other  misdemeanors,  would  manifestly  be  proper 
subjects  of  an  impeachment,  for  otherwise  a  wicked,  corrupt,  or  incompetent 
foreign  minister  might  embroil  the  nation  in  a  war  imperilling  our  exidtence,  to 
avoid  which  impeachment  might  be  the  only  remedy. 

The  impeachment  trials  in  the  United  States  may  be  said  to  have  conclu- 
sively settled  these  questions,  t 

The  first  case  tried— that  of  William  Blount,  a  senator  of  the  United  States 
from  Tennessee — simply  decided  that  none  but  civil  officers  can  be  impeached, 
and  that  a  senator  is  not  such  civil  officer.  But  the  articles  of  impeachment — 
none  of  which  charged  a  statutory  crime,  and  some  certainly  no  common  law 
oflfence — proceeded  upon  the  idea  that  acts  were  impeachable!  which  were  not 
indictable,  so  much  so  that  no  objection  was  suggested  on  that  account. 

The  next  case  is  that  of  Judge  Pickering,  §  who  was  convicted  upon  each  of 

*  "There  are  offences  for  which  an  officer  may  b"  impeached,  and  against  which  there  are  no  known  posi- 
tive laws.  It  is  possible  that  the  day  may  arrive  when  a  President  of  the  United  States,  having  some  great 
political  object  in  view,  niaj'  endeavor  to  influence  Congress  by  holding  out  throats  or  inducements  to  them. 
A  treaty  may  be  made  which  the  President,  with  some  view,  may  be  extremely  anxiouit  to  huve  ratilied. 
The  hope  ofoffice  may  be  held  out  to  a  senator  ;  and  I  think  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  for  this  the  President 
would  be  liable  to  impeachment,  although  there  is  no  positive  law  forbidding  it.  Again,  sir,  a  member  of  the 
Senate  or  of  the  House  of  Representatives  may  have  a  very  dear  friend  in  office,  and  the  President  may  tell 
him  unless  you  vote  for  rny  measures  your  friend  shall  be  dismissed.  Where  is  the  positive  law  forbidding 
this  ?  Yet,  where  is  the  mau  who  would  be  shameless  enough  to  rise  in  the  face  of  his  country  and  defend  such 
conduct,  or  be  bold  enough  to  contend  that  the  President  could  not  bo  impeached  for  it?"  (Per  Nicholson,  3 
Chase's  Trial,  339,  341.     See  Peck's  Trial  309.) 

"The  al)use  of  a  power  given  may  be  as  criminal  as  the  usurpation  of  a  power  not  granted."  (Per  Bacbonan 
on  Peck's  Trial,  4'.i7.) 

He  supposes  the  case  of  a  judge  having  discretionary  power  to  fine  and  imposing  enormous  and  unnecessary 
punishment. 

t  Those  before  the  .Senate  of  the  United  .States  are  the  cases  of — 

1.  William  Blouut,  a  senator  of  the  United  States,  July,  1797,  to  January,  1798.  (Wharton's  State  Trials, 
200.) 

2.  John  Pickering,  district  judge.  New  Hampshire,  180.1-'OJ.     (.\nnals  of  Congress ;   2,  Hililreth's  Hist ,  518.  ) 

3.  Samuel  Chase,  associate  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  United  States,  1804-05.  (Trial  of  Chase,  by 
Smith  &  Lloyd,  2  vols.) 

4.  James  Peck,  district  judge  Missouri,  1826,  1831.     (Pock's  Trial,  by  Stansbury,  1  vol.) 

5.  West  W.  Humphreys,  district  judge  of  Tennessee,  1862.  (Congressional  Globe,  vol.s.  47,  48,  49,  2d  sessioo 
37th  Congress.     See  report  No.  44,  2d  session  37th  Congress,  vol.  3  Uoports  of  Committees.) 

J  There  were  five  articles — 

1.  That  in  1797  Spain,  owning  the  Floridas  and  Louisiana,  viras  at  war  with   England,  and  Senator  Blount 
"  did  conspire  and  contrive  to  create,  promote,  and  set  on  foot     *     *     in  the   United  Stales,  and  to  conduct 
and  carry  on  from  thence  a  military  hostile  expedition  again.st    *     "     the  Floriilas  and  Louisiana     *      »      * 
for  tho  purjiuBo  of  wresting  the  same   from  "   Spain,   and  of  conquering   the  same   for  Great  Britain,  In 
violation  of  the  obligations  of  neutrality  of  tlie  United  States. 

2.  That  liy  the  treaty  of  Octot)er  27,  1795,  the  United  States  and  Spain  agreed  to  restrain  Indian  hostilities 
in  tlie  cr)unfi y  adjaconi  to  the  Floridas,  yet  Blount,  in  1797,  "ilid  conspire  and  contrive  to  excite  the  Creek  and 
Clii-rokie  Imiians  "  in  X\v  United  States  "  to  commeniM'  hostilities  against  the  subjects  and  possissions  in  the 
Floridas  and  Louisiana,  for  llie  purpose  of  reilucing  the  same  to  the  dominion  of  '  "  Great  Britain,"  in 
violation  of  the  treaty,  the  oliligations  of  neutrality,  and  his  dntli^s  as  S(<nator. 

3.  That  HIiniMt,  in  April,  1797,  to  accomplish  his  dcsi^'us  aforesaid,  did  "conspire  an.!  contrive  to  alienate  tlte 
confidence  of  said  Indian  tribi-s  "  from  the  United  .States  Indian  agent,  "anil  to  diminish,  impiiir,  ami  destroy" 
bis  intiuence  "  with  the  said  Indian  tril)es,  and  their  friendly  intercourse  and  understanding  with  him." 

4.  That  lilonnt,  in  April,  1797,  "did  conspire  and  contrive  to  se.lnce  "  an  Imlian  interpreter  of  the  United 
States  with  the  Indians  umler  a  treaty  between  tliem  and  the  Uniti-cl  Stales,  "  from  his  dnty,  and  to  engage  " 
bim  "to  as-ist  in  tlie  promtition  and  execution  of  his  said  crinunal  intentions  and  conspiracies." 

5.  That  Blount,  in  April,  1797,  "did  conspire  and  contrive  to  diminish  and  impair  the  confidence  of  said 
Cherokee  nation  in  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  to  cruate  anil  foment  disconleuts  and  disatfeciion 
among  the  said  Indians  towards  tho  *  *  United  States  in  relation  to"  ascertaining  and  marking  the  boundary 
lino  between  the  lands  of  tho  Indiana  and  of  tho  United  States  iu  purauaucu  of  a  treaty  between  them. 

5  The  articles  charged — 
I.  That  tho  surveyor  of  tho  district  of  Now  llanipshire  did,  in  tll^  port  of  Portsniouth.  seize  the  ship  Eliza  for 
nnlailing  foreign  goods  contrary  to  law,  and  the  niarshal  of  tin-  itistiiit,  on  t,li-  Kith  of  October,  1802,  by  order 
of  Judge  Pickering,  did  arrest  and  detain  oaid  ship  for  trial, -and  the  act  of  Cougre^s  of  March  2,  1789,  provulea 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  141 

four  peveral  articles  of  impeachment  before  the  Senate,  aud  removed  from  office 
in  March,  1S04.*  This  case  proves  that  a  violation  of  law  of  a  particular  char- 
acter, and  drunkenness  and  profanity  on  the  bench,  are  each  impeachable  high 
cx'imes  and  misdemeanors.  In  this  case  the  defence  of  insanity  was  mad-e  and 
supported  by  evidence.  The  case  does  not  show  the  opinion  of  senators  on  this 
evidence.  But  if  the  insanity  was  regarded  as  proved,  this  case  shows  that  a 
ci-iminal  intent  is  not  necessary  to  constitute  au  impeachable  high  crime  and 
misdemeanor,  but  that  the  power  of  impeachment  may  be  interposed  to  protect 
the  public  against  the  misconduct  of  an  insane  officer. 

The  next  case  is  that  of  Samuel  Ohase,t  an  associate  justice  of  the  Supreme 

that  such  ship  may,  by  order  of  the  judge,  be  delivered  to  the  clahnant  ou  giving  bond  to  the  United  States, 
aud  ou  producing  a  certiticate  from  the  collector  of  the  district  that  tlie  duties  on  the  goods  and  tonnage  duty 
on  thu  ship  had  been  paid;  yet  Judge  Pickering,  with  intent  to  evade  the  act  of  Congress,  ordered  the  ship  to 
be  restored  to  the  claimant  without  producing  the  certificate  of  payment  of  duties  aud  tonnage  duty. 

2.  That  at  the  district  court  of  New  Hampshire  in  November,  1802,  the  collector  having  libelled  said  ship 
because  of  said  unlawful  unlading  of  goods  and  prayed  her  forfeiture  to  the  United  States,  yet  Judge  Pickering, 
with  intent  to  defeat  the  just  claims  of  the  United  States,  refused  to  hear  the  testimony  of  witnesses  produced 
to  sustain  the  claim  of  the  United  States,  aud  without  hearing  theui,  did  order  aud  decree  said  ship  to  be 
restored  to  the  claimant  contrary  to  law. 

3.  That  the  act  of  24th  September,  1789,  authorizes  an  appeal  to  the  circuit  court  in  such  case,  and  the 
United  States  district  attorney  did  claim  an  appeal  from  said  decree,  yet  said  judge,  disregarding  the  law, 
intending  to  injure  the  revenues,  refused  to  allow  an  appeal. 

4.  That  Judge  Pickering  being  a  man  of  loose  morals  and  intemperate  habits,  on  11th  and  12th  November, 
1602.  did  appear  on  the  bench  of  his  court  for  the  purpose  of  administering  justice  in  a  state  of  total  intoxica- 
c;Hion  produced  by  inebriating  liquors,  and  did  then  and  there  freqiiently  and  in  a  most  profane  aud  indecent 
manner  invoke  the  name  of  the  Supreme  Being.     (  Annals  of  Congress  of  18UJ-4,  p.  3iy.) 

*  1.  This  case  was  thus  commented  ou  during  Peck's  trial: 

"  I  admit  that  if  tlie  charge  against  a  judge  be  merely  an  iUegal  decision  or  a  question  of  property  in  a  cicil 
cause,  his  error  ought  to  be  gross  and  palpaljle  indeed  to  justify  the  inference  of  a  criminal  intention  and  to 
convict  him  upon  an  impeachment.  And  yet  one  case  of  this  cnaracter  occurred  in  our  history.  Judge  Pick- 
ering was  tried  aud  condemned  upon  all  the  four  articles  exhibited  against  him,  although  the  first  three  con- 
tained no  other  charge  than  that  of  making  decisions  contrary  to  law  iu  a  cause  involving  a  mere  question  of 
property  ;  and  then  refusing  to  grant  the  party  injured  an  appeal  from  his  decision,  to  which  he  was  entitled." 
(  Per  Buchanan,  in  Peck's  Trial,  428.) 

Mr.  Nicholson  arguendo,  2Chase's  Trial,  341,  in  referring  to  Pickering's  case,  says,  he  "was  impeached  for 
drunkenness  aud  profane  swearing  on  the  bench,  although  there  is  no  law  of  the  United  States  forbidding 
them.  Indeed,  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  law  punishing  either  in  New  Hampshire,  where  the  offence 
was  committed.  It  was  said  by  one  of  the  counsel  that  these  were  indictable  oifences.  I,  however,  do  uot 
know  where;  certainlv  not  in  England.  Drunkenness  is  punishable  there  by  the  ecclesiastical  authority  ;  but 
the  tempoial  magistrate  never  had  auy  power  over  it  until  it  was  given  by  a  statute  of  James  I,  and  even 
then  the  power  was  not  to  be  exercised  by  the  courts,  but  only  by  a  justice  of  the  peace,  as  is  now  the  case  in 
Maryland,  where  a  small  fine  may  be  imposed." 

Mr.  Harper  had  said:  "  Habitual  drunkenness  in  a  judge  and  profane  swearing  in  any  person  are  indictable 
oflTences,  [at  common  law.]  Aud  if  they  were  not,  still  they  are  violations  of  the  law.  I  do  uot  mean  to  say 
that  there  is  a  statute  against  drunkenness  and  profane  swearing.  But  they  are  offences  against  good  morals, 
and  a»  such  are  forbidden  by  the  common  law.  They  are  offences  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man. "  (2  Chase's 
Trial,  255,  400.) 

t  There  were  eight  articles  of  impeachment : 

1.  That  on  the  trial  of  Fries  for  treason  in  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  for  Penn.eylvania,  in  April, 
1800,  he 

(1.)  Prepared  and  furnished  counsel  an  opinion  in  writing  on  the  questions  of  law  in  the  case  before  trial  or 
argument. 

(2.)  Restricted  Fries's  counsel  from  recurring  to  certain  English  authorities  and  statutes  of  the  United  States 
illustrative  of  posiiions  for  defence. 

(3.)  Denied  counsel  for  defeuce  the  right  to  argue  the  law  of  the  case  to  the  jury,  endeavoring  to  wrest  from 
the  jury  the  right  to  determine  questions  of  law. 

2.  At  the  circuit  court  at  Richmond,  iu  May,  1800,  Callender  was  arraigned  for  libel  on  John  Adams,  then 
President,  and  the  judge,  with  intent  to  procure  his  conviction,  overruled  the  objection  of  Basset,  one  of  the 
jury,  who  wished  to  be  excused  because  he  had  made  up  his  mind,  and  required  hini  to  sit  ou  tlie  jury. 

3.  That  with  same  intent  the  judge  refused  to  permit  the  evidence  of  a  witness  to  be  given,  on  pretence  that 
the  witness  could  not  prove  the  truth  of  the  whole  of  one  of  the  charges  contained  in  an  indictment  einbraciug 
more  than  one  fact. 

4.  Injustice  and  partiality  in  said  case : 

(1.)  Iu  compelling  prisoner's  counsel  to  reduce  to  writing  all  questions  proposed  to  be  put  to  that  witness. 

(2.)  In  refusing  to  postpone  the  trial  on  a  sutficieut  affidavit  filed. 

(3.)  Rude  and  contemptuous  expressions  to  counsel. 

(4.)  Repeated  and  vexatious  interruptions  of  counsel,  inducing  them  to  abandon  their  cause  and  client. 

5.  That  1  he  judge  awarded  a  capias  lor  the  arrest  of  said  Callender.  when  the  statute  of  Virginia  iu  such  case 
only  authorized  a  summons  requirmg  the  accused  to  answer. 

{).  The  judge  required  Callender  to  submit  to  trial  during  the  term  at  which  he  was  indicted,  in  violation  of 
the  statute  of  Virginia,  dichiring  that  the  accused  shall  not  answer  until  the  next  succeeding  term  ;  the  United 
States  judiciary  act  nf  -.qth  September,  1789,  recognizing  the  State  laws  as  rules  of  decision. 

7.  At  the  circuit  court  in  Delaware,  in  June,  1800,  the  judge  refused  to  discharge  the  grand  jury,  although 
entreated  by  several  of  the  jury  to  do  so,  and  after  the  jury  had  regularly  declared  through  their  foreman  that 
they  had  found  no  bills  of  indictment,  nor  had  any  presentment  to  make,  and  instructed  the  jury  that  it  was 
their  duty  to  look  after  a  certain  seditious  printer  living  in  Wilmington.  And  the  judge  enjoined  on  the  district 
attorney  the  necessity  of  procuring  a  file  of  a  newspaper  printed  at  Wilmington,  to  tind  some  passage  which 
might  furnish  the  ground-work  of  a  prosecution — all  with  intent  to  procure  the  prosecuticu  of  said  printer. 

8.  That  the  judge  at  the  circuit  court  at  Baltimore,  in  Jlay,  1803,  perverted  his  official  right  ar.d  duty  to 
address  the  grand  jury,  delivering  to  them  an  inflammatory  political  harangue,  with  intent  to  excite  the  people 
of  Maryland  against  their  State  government  and  against  the  United  States. 

[His  addres*  was  in  part  against  universal  suffrage.] 


142 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


Court  of  tho  United  States.  In  this  case  it  was  insisted  for  the  accused  that 
"no  judge  can  be  impeached  and  removed  from  office  for  any  act  or  offence  for 
which  he  could  not  be  indicted,"  either  by  statute  or  common  haw.*  But  this 
was  denied  with  convincing  argument, t  and  was  practically  abandoned  by  the 
defence.^ 

In  1S30,  James  II.  Peck,  judge  of  the  United  States  district  court  for  Mis- 
souri, was  impeached  by  the  House  of  Representatives  for  imprisoning  and 
suspending  from  practice  an  attorney  of  his  court. §  The  argument  for  the 
prosecution  alluded -to  the  proposition  stated  in  Chase's  trial,  "  that  a  judge  can- 
not be  impeached  for  any  offence  which  is  not  indictable ;"  ||  but  the  counsel 
for  the  accused  repudiated  any  such  doctrine  as  a  ground  of  defence.^f 

Mr.  Wirt  did  not  hazard  his  reputation  by  any  such  claim.**  Peck  was  not 
convicted. 

The  case  of  "West  W.  Humphreys,  judge  of  the  United  States  district  court 
for  the  district  of  Tennessee,  proceeded  on  the  ground  that  an  ofhcer  was  impeach- 
able without  having  committed  a  statutory  or  common  law  offence. tt 

*1.  Chase's  Trial,  9-18,  per  Clark.     Per  Lee  107,  citing  2  Bacon  97.     Per  Martin  137.     Per  Harper  254-9. 

Judge  Chase  in  bis  answer  declared  that  he  was  only  liable  for  a  misdemeanor,  ' '  consisting  iu  some  act  done 
or  omitted  in  violation  of  law  forbidding  or  commanding  it,"  and  that  he  was  not  in)peaclial)le  "except  for 
gome  offence  for  which  he  may  be  indicted  :"  (1  Chase's  Trial,  47,  48;  1  Story  on  Const.,  §  796,  note;  4  Ell»- 
ott'a  Debates  263.) 

t  1  Chase's  Trial  35.3,  per  Campbell.  Per  Rodney,  378.  2  Chase's  Trial  335,  339-340,  per  Nicholson.  ] 
Chase's  Trial  335,  352  ;  2  Chase's  351.  "  It  is  suflScient  to  show  that  the  accused  has  transgressed  the  liue  of 
his  official  duty  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  his  country;  and  that  this  conduct  can  only  be  accountfd  for  on  the 
ground  of  impure  and  corrupt  motives:"  (1  Chase's  Trial,  353,  per  Campbell  )  "Violation  of  official  duty, 
whether  it  be  a  proceeding  against  a  positive  law  or  a  proceeding  unwarranted  by  law  :"  (2  Chase's  Trial,  34i9, 
per  Nicholson.)  "^ 

J  3  Chase's  Trial  255,  per  Harper. 

On  Peck's  Trial  427,  Buchanan  said  :  "  The  principle  fairly  to  be  deduced  from  all  the  arguments  on  the 
trial  of  Judge  Chase,  and  from  the  votes  of  the  Senate  on  the  articles  of  impeachment  apainst  him,"'  was  to 
hold  that  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  or  law  was  impeachable,  "  in  opposition  to  the  principle  *  *  thai 
in  order  to  render  an  offence  impeachable  it  must  be  indictable." 

5  The  charge  w-as  that,  as  judge  of  the  district  court  for  Mi.<souri,  be  on  the  Slst  April,  1826,  imprisoned  L.  E 
Lawless,  an  attorney,  for  twenty-four  hours  and  suspended  him  for  eighteen  months  from  practicing  law,  for 
an  alleged  contempt  of  court  in  publishing  a  newspaper  aiticle  reviewing  a  published  decision  of  said  Judge ; 
that  said  judge,  luiniiudful  of  the  duties  of  his  station,  and  that  "  he  held  the  same  by  the  Constituti'in  during 
gi)od  behavior  only,  with  intent  wrongfully  and  unjustly  to  oppress,  imprison,  and  injure  said  Lawless,  Sm.'' 
LI  is  answf  r  conceded  a  liability  to  impeachment  on  facts  which  would  not  be  indictable. 

II  Peck's  Trial  308,  per  Wickliffe. 

IT  Mr.  Meredith's  propositions  were  (Peck's  Trial  327,)  that  the  court  had  the  power  to  punish  contempts; 
that  the  case  of  Lawless  was  a  contempt  proper  for  its  exercise  ;  that  the  pur.ishment  was  proper ;  ami  lastly, 
"  that  if  the  court  had  not  the  power,  or  if  having  it,  the  case  was  not  a  case  proper  for  its  application  ;  still 
the  act  did  not  proceed  from  the  evil  and  malicious  intention  with  which  it  is  charged,  and  which  it  is  ubtio 
lutely  necessary  should  have  accompanied  it  to  constitute  the  guilt  of  an  impeachable  offence. 

Judge  Peck,  iu  th(^  answer  to  his  impeachment,  said : 

"  In  the  digested  report  of  the  committee  of  the  House  of  Commons,  which  follows  the  report  of  the  nrgn- 
nients  of  the  managers  who  conducted  that  impeachment,  (against  Warren  Hastings,)  it  will  be  si^en,  too,  that 
in  the  estimation  of  that  committee  the  proceedings  of  courts  of  law  furnish  no  lule  whatever  for  the  proci'cd- 
ings  in  an  impeachment,  the  latter  being  governed  by  no  other  law  or  custom  than  the  lix  el  coHsiictndo  parlin- 
mcnti.  whicli  left  the  house  at  perfect  liberty  to  pursue  the  great  ends  of  justice  untrammelled  by  any  other 
rules  than  tliose  which  reason  and  public  utility  jirescribe :"  (Peck's  Trial,  10;  see  2  Hale  P.  C,  chai>ter  20 
page  150;  6  Howell's  State  Trial,  ,  313,  316,  346,  note ;  note  to  Lord  Capel's  case,  4  Howell's  Slate  'I'rials, 
12,  13  ;  Case  ol  Karl  of  Danby,  A.  1>.  1678;  11,  Howell's  State  Trials,  650;  4  Hatsel's  Puc,  71. ) 

*■*  He  cites  the  opinion  of  Kent  in  a  case  in  5  Johns,  Rep.  291,  which  was  a  civil  action  against  Chancellor 
Lansing  for  punishing  a  conteniiit.  Kent  says:  "There  must  be  the  scienter  ox  intentional  violation  of  tha 
stalnle,  and  tliis  can  never  be  imputed  to  the  judicial  proceedings  of  a  court.  It  would  be  an  inipeacliable 
offence,  which  can  never  be  averred  or  .shown  but  under  the  process  of  impeacliinent."  He  conceded  that  an 
iiitaitioJial  riolalion  of  the  law  icas  impeachable,  and  cited  Erskine's  Speeches,  vol.  1,  374,  (New  York  ed.  1813.) 
to  show  that  impeachment  should  be  used  as  an  example  "to  corruption  and  wilful  abuse  of  authority  by  extra 
legal  pains." 

And,  referring  to  Hammond  v.  Howell,  1  Mod.  184,  2  Id.  218,  and  the  remark  that  complaint  should  be  made 
to  the  king  to  secure  the  removal  of  a  judge  who  had  unlawfully  imprisoned  a  juror  lor  contempt,  said,  that 
course  was  proper  "if  the  judge  had  acted  corruptly,  *  *  that  is,  with  a  wicked  iulenliou  to  oppress  umler 
color  of  law."     (Peck's  Trial,  493,  495.) 

tt  The  charges  were: 

1.  For  advocating  secession  in  a  public  speech  at  Nashville,  December  29,  1860. 

2.  For  openly  sui)iiorting  and  adroeating  the  Tennessee  ordinance  of  secession. 

3.  For  aid  in  organizing  armed  relnllion.  . 

4.  For  conspiring  with  Jefferson  Davis  and  others  to  oppose  by  force  the  authority  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States. 

5.  For  neglecting  and  refusing  to  hold  the  district  court  of  the  United  States. 

6.  For  acting  as  a  confederate  judge,  and,  as  such,  sentrncing  nun  to  be  banished  and  imprisoned,  and  their 
property  to  be  confiscated,  for  their  loyaltj-,  "  and  espeeiallj-  ot  property  of  one  Andrew  .lohnson.'' 

7.  For  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  "one  AVillinm  Ci.  Urownluw,  exercising  authority  as  judge  of  the 
district  court  of  the  Confederate  States." 

He  was  convicted  on  all  the  articles  severally  by  ft  vote  on  each,  except  that  part  of  art.  6,  which  churgeu  Mm 
with  confiscating  the  property  of  Andrew  Joh&ijou.    (49  Gk>be,  1861-2,  pi.  4,  p.  2950.) 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  143 

In  fact,  the  charge  of  advoeating  secession  was  a  crime  of  which  half  the 
leading  politicians  of  the  south  had  been  guilty  for  many  years.  In  the  seven 
articles  of  irapeacliment  against  hitn,  two  may  be  said  to  charge  treason  ;  and 
it  may  be  claimed  that  one  good  article  will  sustain  a  coaviction,  by  way  of 
analogy  to  the  doctrine  that  one  good  count  in  an  indictment,  notwithstanding 
the  presence  of  bad  ones,  will  sustain  a  sentence.  But  even  this  is  not  law  in 
England*  But  there  is  no  analogy.  The  Senate,  by  a  separate  vote  on  each 
article,  specifically  passed  on  the  sufficiency  of  each  article  to  constitute  an 
impeachable  offence,  while  a  jury  passes  generally  on  all  th(^  counts  of  an  indict- 
ment. And  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee, 
recommending  impeachment,  did  not  charge  treason  or  other  indictable  crime,  nor 
was  there  evidence  of  any  ;  t  and  on  the  trial  of  the  case  no  doubt  was  expressed 
as  to  the  right'to  convict  on  each  of  the  articles.  The  cases  tried  in  the  States 
fully  sustain  the  same  view,  both  before  and  since  the  adoption  of  our  national 
Constitution. I 

Judge  Addison  §  was  impeached  in  Pennsylvania  in  1802,  and  his  defence 
was  that  he  had  committed  no  act  indictable  at  common  law ;  but  the  senate 
almost  unanimously  convicted  him,  utterly  repudiating  that  as  a  defence. 

*  Regiua  v.  O'Connell,  11  Clark  &  Fin.  15;  9  Jurist,  30;  Wharton'8  Crim.  Law,  §  3047. 
t  Report  No.  44,  2d  Session  37th  Congress,  vol.  3  of  House  Reports. 

X  On  the  12th  Jul}-,  1788,  three  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  attached  and  fined 
Oswald  £10.  and  imprisoned  him  one  mouth,  for  publishing  a  newspaper  article  having  a  tendency  to  preju- 
dice the  public  with  respect  to  tlie  merits  of  a  cause  depending  ia  court.     (1  Dallas,  319.) 

On  5th  September,  1788,  Oswald  memorialized  the  general  assembly  to  determine  "whether  the  judges  did 
not  infringe  the  Constitution  in  direct  terms  in  the  sentence  they  had  pronounced;  and  whether,  of  course, 
they  had  uot  made  themselves  proper  objects  of  impeacliraent." 

The  House,  in  committee  of  the  whole,  heard  the  evidence.  Mr.  Lewis,  a  member,  maintained  that  tho 
only  grounds  of  impeachment  were  bribery,  corruption,  gross  impartiality,  or  wilful  and  arbitrary  oppression — 
none  of  which  being  proved,  the  memorial  ought  to  be  dismissed. 

Mr.  Finley,  tlieu  a  member,  said :  "Though  ho  deemed  it  his  duty  to  pronounce  that  the  decision  of  tho 
Supreme  Court  was  a  deviation  from  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  frame  of  government,  yet  he  did  uot  mean  to 
assert  that  any  ground  has  been  shown  for  tlie  impeachment  of  the  judge.s.  But,  on  the  contrary,  he  agreed 
that  bribery,  corruption,  or  wilful  and  arbitrary  infraction  of  the  law,  were  the  only  true  causes  for  instituting 
a  prosecution  of  that  nature."     (See  1  Dallas,  335;  Addison's  Trial,  129.) 

The  House  resolved,  by  34  to  23,  that  the  charges  of  arbitrary  and  oppressive  proceedings  in  the  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  are  unsupported  by  the  testimony  introduced,  and  consequently  that  there  is  no  just  cause  for 
impeaching  the  said  justices.     (  See  the  report  of  this  case  in  1  Dallas,  3d  ed.,  Phila.  1830,  p.  353  [329].) 

On  the  trial  of  Chase,  Mr.  Rodney,  referring  to  this  case,  said  :  "  Three  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  were  accused  of  fining  aud  imprisoning,  without  the  intervention  of  a  jury,  a  fellow-citizen  for  publishing 
.  a  paper  whicli  they  considered  as  a  coufempt  of  court.  The  judges  were  defended  by  two  most  able  and  elo- 
quent counsel,  who  contended  that  the  Constitution,  the  laws  aud  the  practice  of  Pennsylvania,  by  adopting 
the  common-law  doctriues  on  the  subject,  justified  the  proceeding,  and  that  if  there  was  no  law  to  justify  it, 
their  conduct  tlowed  from  an  honest  error  in  judgment.  But,  sir,  they  did  not  attempt  to  maintain  the  position 
contended  for  on  this  occasion,  that  to  support  an  impeachment  the  conduct  of  a  jiiilgo  must  be  such  as  to  sub- 
ject him  to  an  indictment."     (See  2  Chase's  Trial,  399.) 

^  Impeachmi-nt  of  Alexander  Addison,  president  judge  of  the  courts  of  common  pleas  of  Westmoreland 
and  other  counties,  1802-3,  couvicted  of— 1.  Directing  a  jury  that  the  address  of  an  associate  judge  to  them 
"had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  before  them;"  aud  2.  Preventing  an  associate  judge  from  addressing 
the  grand  jury  concerning  their  duties,  by  denying  the  right,  and  by  leaving  the  bench,  aud  thus  irregularly 
adjourning  the  court."    (Addison's  Trial,  by  i'homas  Lloyd,  2d  ed.,  Lancaster,  1803.) 

Mr.  Mcivean,  one  of  the  managers,  iu  opening  the  trial,  said :  "Offences  under  color  of  office  *  *  have 
always  been  considered  as  the  most  proper,  and  of  course  the  usual  ground  of  impeachment.  They  are  such 
as  the  ordinary  magistrates  cannot  or  dare  not  punish.  "*  "^  It  often  happens  that  officers  may  and  do  abuse 
their  power  to  the  injur}-  of  the  commonwealth,  and  at  the  same  time  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  render  their 
conduct  cognizable  before  the  ordinary  tribunals  of  justice,  so  as  to  proceed  by  indictment  or  information." 
(See  Addison's  Trial,  .31.) 

In  Pennsj-lvania  the  courts  entertain  jurisdiction  of  common-law  crimes.  The  Attorney  General  filed  a 
motion  for  a  rule  against  Addison,  to  show  cause  in  the  .Supreme  Court  w-hy  an  information  should  uot  bo 
filed  against  him.  The  court  held  that  it  was  the  right  of  the  associate  judge  to  address  the  grand  jury ;  but 
the  coiirt,  per  Chief  Justice  Shippen,  sad:  "The  affidavit  does  not  state  malice.  It  would  .seem  to  be  a  n.is- 
take  of  right.  Unless  a  crime  is  stated  the  court  cannot  take  cognizance.  There  may  be  another  remedy, 
fb y  impeachment. J  It  does  not  lie  with  us  to  say  what  that  is.  The  proceeding  was  arbitrary,  unbecoming, 
unhand.some,  ungentlemanly,  unmannijrly,  and  improper;  but  there  not  being  an  imptitatiou. of  wilful  misbe- 
havior and  malice,  it  is  not  indictable  or  the  subject  of  an  information. "     (Trial,  70.) 

Judge  Addison,  in  hisdefence,  said  :  "No  impeachment  will  lie  but  for  a  misdemeanor  in  office,  and  every 
misdemeanor  in  office  is  indictable;  the  officer  impeached  still  remains  liable  to  indictment,  trial,  judgment, 
and  punishment  according  to  law.  An  impeachment  lies  only  where  an  indictment  lies;  no  offici-r  can  be 
convicted  on  an  impeachment  who  ought  not  to  be  convicted  on  an  indictment;  and  the  punishment  on 
irapecchment  is  cumulative — not  exclusive.  The  acts  for  which  an  officer  may  be  impeached  are  precisely  those 
for  which  hi  ina}- be  indicted  as  an  officer;  misdemeanors  iu  office,  offences  or  unlawful  acts  done  with  an 
evil  intention  iu  his  official  capacity."     (Trial,  104.) 

A  mere  unlawful  act  from  a  mistake  or  error  in  judgment  cannot  bo  alleged  as  a  [impeachable]  crime. 
Hot  only  wroug,  but  wilful  wrong  mu.st  bo  made  out,  or  the  offence  is  uot  complete."     (Page  118.) 

'Though  a  judge  acts  uulawfuUy  and  unconstitutionally,  he  cannot  be  convicted  on  an  impeachment  unless 
hfthas  acted  wilfully  so."     (Page,  129;  see  1  Dallas,  335.) 

But  this  position  was  denied,  and  Addison  was  found  guilty  by  a  vote  of  20  to  4.  (See  this  case  referred  to, 
S  Chase's  Trial,  396.) 


144 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


In  Massachusett?,*  the  rule  is  well  settled  in  conformity  with  what  seems  to 
be  the  recognized  doctrine  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

i\mong  the  cases  tried  with  great  learning  and  ability  there,  is  that  of  James 
Prescott,t  who  was  convicted  before  the  senate. 

Mr.  Blakk.|  for  the  defence,  insisted  that  impeachment  is  '•  a  process  which 
can  only  be  resorted  to  for  the  punishment  of  some  great  ofi'ence  ajrainst  a  known, 
settled  law  of  the  land."  The  prosecution  maintained  "  that  any  wilful  viola- 
tion of  law,  or  any  wilful  and  corrupt  act  of  omission  or  commission  in  execution 
or  under  color  of  office  *  *  is  such  an  act  of  misconduct  and  maladminis- 
tration in  office  as  will  render  him  liable  to  punishment  by  impeachment. "§ 

Chief  Justice  Chase  evidently  holds  that  a  failure  to  perform  official  duty  is 
impeachable,  without  reference  to  its  indictable  character  or  the  motives  therefor. 
And  further,  that  the  Senate  is  so  entirely  the  exclusive  judge  of  what  is  official 
delinquency,  that  the  President  cannot  protect  himself  against  impeachment  for 
a  failure  to  execute  a  law  by  the  decree  of  a  court  enjoining  him  therefrom. 

On  the  loth  April,  1867,  in  refusing  the  application  of  the  so-called  State  of 

*  The  MassacbusettK  cases  are — 

1.  Idiptacliment  of  William  Greenleaf.  sheriff  of  Worcester  county,  1788.  Convicterl— (1.)  Of  detaining  for 
his  private  use  public  moneys,  when  the  commonwealth  has  a  right  thereto ;  (2.)  Of  exhibiting  dishonest 
accounts  of  taxes  collected  ;  (.3.)  Of  detaining  for  two  years  public  moneys  from  town  of  Petersham  ;  (4.)  Of 
procuring  from  the  treasurer  of  commonwealth  an  execution  for  money  previously  collected  by  him  ,  (5.)  Of 
false  returns  on  executions;  (6.)  Of  procuring  a  warrant  of  distress  for  money  previously  paid  him. 

2.  Impeacliraent  of  William  Hunt,  ajustice  of  the  peace  of  Watertown,  1794.  Convicted  of  entering  on  his 
docket,  on  the  trial  day  of  causes,  tlie  personal  appearance  of  plaintiffs,  who  were  absent,  thousrh  defeudantB 
demanded  their  appearance.     The  senate  found  Hunt  guilty,  but  suspended  judgment  for  a  year. 

3.  Impeachment  of  John  Vinal,  ajustice  of  the  peace  of  Suti'olk  county,  IfiOU.  Convicted  of  extortion  and 
bribery. 

4.  Impeachment  of  Moses  Copeland,  a  justice  of  the  peace  for  Lincoln  county,  1807-8.  Acquitted  on 
chargers :  1st.  That  he  bought  a  note  indorsed  in  blank,  and  entertained  suit  in  name  of  Samuel  Kingsbury, 
and  rendered  judgment,  though  in  fact  the  note  was  Copelaud's ;  2d.  For  defaultmg  a  defendant,  and  entering 
judgment  before  the  hour  set  for  trial ;  3d.  Bribery 

5.  Impeachment  of  James  Prescott,  judge  of  probate  for  Middlesex,  1821.  Convicted  of  exacting  illegal  fees, 
and  of  inserting  by  interlineation  in  a  guardian's  account,  previously  sworn  to,  an  item  due  to  and  paid  to  him- 
Belf,  and  then  nf  settling  the  account  as  judge. 

See  "Prescott's  Trial,  by  Pickering  and  Gardner,  Boston,  1821."  In  the  appendix  is  an  abstract  of  the  pre- 
ceding irapeachmeuts.  On  the  trial  of  Prescott,  it  was  said  by  Mr.  Blake,  arguendo,  that  -  within  the  compass 
of  forty  long  years,  three  or  four  solitary  instances  of  trial  by  impeachment  have  occurred  in  this  common- 
wealth. Of  these,  two  I  believe  [three]  resulted  in  a  conviction ;  and  I  feel  myself  justified  in  stating,  that  iu 
neither  of  the  instances  alluded  to  was  there  any  point  of  constitutioual  law  involved  in  the  inquiry." 

This  case  was  conducted  with  great  ability. 

And  see  Report  of  tho  Trial  and  Acquittal  of  Edward  Shippen,  Chief  Justice  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Others, 
before  the  Senate  of  that  State,  in  1805,  by  Wm.  Hamilton. 

Trial  of  George  W.  Smith,  Count  v  Judge  of  Oneida  cimuty,  before  the  Senate  of  New  York,  1866. 

Trial  of  Impeachment  of  Levi  Hiibbell,  Judge  of  the  Second  Circuit,  by  the  Senate  of  Wisconsin,  June,  1853. 

"An  Account  of  the  Impeachment  and  Trial  of  the  late  Francis  Ho|ikiuson,  Esq.,  Judge  of  the  Court  of 
Admiralty  fur  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania;  Printed  by  Francis  Bailey,  Philadelphia,  17114." 

Ho  was  tried  and  acquitted  in  November  and  December,  1780. 

The  same  volume  contains  ''An  Account  of  the  Impeachment,  Trial,  and  Acquittal  of  John  Nicholson,  Esq., 
Comptroller  General  of  Pennsylvania." 

He  was  acquitted  April  7,  1794. 

t  In  1821,  Prescott,  a  judge  of  probate,  was  impeached  before  the  senate  of  Massachusetts.  The  12th 
article  charged  that  Ware  was  guardian  of  Birch,  a  non  compos  vicntis ;  that  Grout,  one  of  the  overseers  of 
the  poor,  had  some  controversy  with  the  guardian  as  to  some  property  of  the  ward  not  involved  in  tlie  account ; 
that  the  juilgi-,  as  attorney,  advised  the  parties,  and  charged,  and  was  paid  live  dollars  by  the  guardian  there- 
for; that  the  judge  interlined  this  item  in  the  account  which  had  been  previouly  sworn  to,  and  settUd  the 
account  allowing  this  item  :  Prescott's  Trial,  189.  The  law  did  not  prohibit  judges  from  acting  as  attorneys  iu 
matters  not  coining  before  their  court. 

It  was  objected  by  the  defence  that  this  was  not  an  otTence  indictable,  and  so  not  impeachable  :  that  espe- 
cially was  this  HO  in  Massachusetts,  since  the  constitution  authorized  a  removal  upon  the  address  of  both  houses 
of  the  legislature  for  any  cause,  and  left  impeachment  against  "  officers  for  misconduct  or  maladministration  iu 
their  offices." 

But  one  of  the  managers  saiil  in  substance  :  '  We  stand  here  on  no  statute,  on  no  particular  law  of  the  com- 
monwealth ;  there  is  none  for  such  a  case.  We  stand  here  upon  the  broad  principles  of  the  common  law — of 
common  justice  *  *  Such  conduct  is  disgraceful  and  contrary  to  the  usages  of  all  civilized  nations  *  * 
We  have  shown  the  conduit  of  the  rci-iiondent  *  *  to  have"bei'u  gros^ly  improper  and  mischievous  iu  its 
tendclicy  ;  this  is  quite  enough  ;  he  liiisninlered  himself  unworthy  of  ollice,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  impeached 
and  removed."    (  Prescott's  Trial,  149.     See  Dntton's  reuuirks,  193-4.) 

And  so  the  senate  decided  by  a  vote  of  19  to  0,  and  convicted  Judge  Prescott. 

♦  Prescott's  Trial,  114.  He  quoted  4  Blackstone  2.'i9,  that  impeachment  "is  a,  prosecution  of  the  already 
known  and  established  law ;  "  and  2  Wooddeson  (ill;  and  part  1  of  Dolby's  Keport  of  the  Trial  o.''  tlie  Queen, 
p.  841,  on  a  bill  of  pains  and  penalties  t<M-  adultery,  where  It  was  said  by  the  Karl  of  Liverpool.  "  hi'  knew  not 
how  they  could  make  that  a  subject  of  iinpeaclnnent,  which  by  tlie  law  of  England  was  not  a  crime.'' 

Mr.  Webster  for  the  defence  said:  "  An  impeachment  is  a  prosecution  for  the  violation  of  existing  laws.' 
(Prescott's  Trial,  lti4.) 

§  Prescott's  Trial  182,  per  Shaw.    See  Dutton's  speech  194. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  145 

Mississippi  for  leave  to  file  a  bill  to  enjoin  the  execution  of  the  "  reconstruction 
r.cts"  of  Congress,  he  said  : 

Suppose  the  bill  filed  and  the  injunctiou  prayed  for  be  allowed.  If  the  President  refuse 
obedience,  it  is  ueedless  to  observe  that  the  court  is  without  power  to  enforce  Its  process.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  President  complies  with  the  order  of  the  court,  and  refuses  to  execute 
the  act  of  Congress,  is  it  not  clear  that  a  collision  may  occur  between  the  executive  and 
legislative  departments  of  the  government  ?  May  not  the  House  of  Representatives  impeach 
the  President  for  such  refusal  ?  And  iu  that  case  could  this  court  interpose  in  beiialf  of  the 
President,  thus  endangered  by  compliance  with  its  mandate,  and  restrain  by  injunction  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  from  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment  ?  Would  the  strange 
spectacle  be  otfered  to  the  public  wonder  of  an  attempt  by  this  court  to  arrest  proceedings  in 
that  court  ? 

These  questions  answer  themselves. 

The  question  whether  an  act  is  impeachable  which  is  not  indictable  at  com- 
mon law  when  committed  by  officers  who  are  answerable  by  indictment,  is 
only  important  to  determine  how  far  the  remedy  by  impeachment  extends. 
But  almost  every  conceivable  act  of  official  misdemeanor  is  at  common  law 
indictable,  though,  on  grounds  of  public  policy,  the  higher  officers  are  not  liable 
to  prosecution  in  the  oidinary  courts  for  official  misdemeanors. 

But  the  question;  as  already  shown,  is  put  at  rest  by  the  practice  in  England, 
by  the  language  of  the  Constitution,  by  the  opinions  of  its  framers,  by  con- 
temporaneous exposition,  by  the  uniform  usage  under  it,  and  by  the  united 
opinion  of  all  ihe  elementary  writers.  The  value  of  these  it  is  unnecessary  to 
discuss,  as  they  are  understood  by  all  lawyers.* 

It  has  alreaay  been  shown  that  the  violation  of  a  public  statute,  though  the 
statute  in  terms  provides  no  punishment,  is  at  common  law  indictable. 

But  it  tnay  be  urged  that  if  an  officer,  charged  by  the  Constitution  and  his 
oath  with  the  duty  of  executing  the  laws,  knowingly  and  intentionally  sus- 
pends the  operatii)n  of  a  particular  statute,  refuses  to  execute  another,  and 
violates  a  thiid.  but  does  so  with  a  view  to  promote  the  -public  interest,  his 
ifiotires  are  good,  and  he  is  not  impeachable,  t 

This  view,  so  plausible  and  insidious,  is  nevertheless  so  dangerous  that  its 
very  monstrous  character  will  show  that  it  cannot  be  maintained.  An  example 
will  illustrate  it.  Let  it  be  supposed  that  with  the  initiatory  steps  of  the  rebel- 
lion the  President  had  declared  that  the  national  government  had  no  constitu- 
tional power  to  suppress  a  rebellion  by  force  of  arms.  | 

Now,  whether  such  an  utterance  was  extorted  by  fear,  or  might  have  been 
an  honest  but  perverted  political  theory,  or  the  result  of  a  ti'easonable  purpose 
to  aid  traitors,  would  have  been  in  its  consequences  to  the  nation  all  the  same 
if  it  could  have  controlled  the  counsels  of  the  nation.  This  sentiment,  believed 
and  acted  on,  wouhl  have  witnessed  the  destruction  of  the  government.  And 
must  the  nation  perish  because  a  President  honestly  believes  in  the  fatal  heresy 
that  the  Constitution  and  Congress  are  powerless  for  self-preservation  1  If  so, 
the  nation  must  die  out  of  tender  regard  to  the  political  idiosyncrasy  of  the 
President?     The  same  fatal  error  of  opinion  and  conduct  will  be  impeachable 

*They  are  discnsaed  in  Si-dswick  on  Statutory  and  Constitutional  Construction. 

tBut  if  an  officer  acts  without  law,  or  even  in  n  mere  ministerial  capacity,  but  having  no  discretion  under  a 
law,  and  violateg  hin  duty  so  as  to  iniptTil  the  public  safety,  he  is  impeachable. 

Bishop  Bays:  "When  a  man  serves  in  a  judicial  or  other  capacity  in  which  he  is  called  (by  law)  to  exercise 
n  judgment  of  his  own,  he  is  uot  punishable  for  a  mere  error  therein  or  for  a  mistake  of  the  law.  Hero  the  act, 
to  be  coj^izable  criminally  or  evnn  civilly,  must  be  wilful  and  corrupt."     (Criminal  Law,  913.) 

"When  a  statute  [or  the  Cimstitiition]  forbids  a  thing  atfi-cting  the  public,  but  provides  no  penalty,  the 
doing  of  it  is  indictable  at  common  law."  (535  [349]  187  [84])  "  Whenever  the  law,  statutory  or  common, 
casts  on  one  a  duty  of  a  public  nature,  any  neglect  of  the  duty  or  act  done  in  violation  of  it  is  indictable." 
(Criminal  Law,  537  [350,1  913.) 

The  same  rule  must  exi.st  wljen  no  law  authorizes  it.  But  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  rules  which 
prevail  in  ordinary  courts  have  no  application  in  impeachment  cases  except  as  the  reasons  upon  which  they 
rest,  commend  them  t  ■  the  consideration  of  and  adoption  by  the  Senate.  The  Senate  is  governed  by  the  " Ur 
el  consuetudo  parliameTtti." 

*  In  the  message  of  December  4,  1860,  the  President  said:  "The  power  to  make  war  against  a  State  is  at 
variance  with  the  whole  spirit  and  intent  ofthe  Constitution.  *  *  *.  Our  Union  rests  upon  public  opinion. 
If  it  cannot  live  in  the  affections  of  the  people,  it  must  one  day  perish.  Congress  possesses  many  means  of 
preserving  it  by  conciliation ;  but  the  sword  was  not  placed  in  their  hands  to  preserve  it  by  force." 

10  I  P 


146  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

in  one  President  who  knows  the  right  and  yet  the  wrong  pursues,  while  another, 
who  believes  in  a  fallacy  because  he  loves  it,  will  escape  unpunished,  though 
the  inherent  wrong  in  principle  and  in  effect  is  the  same  in  both  cases. 

If  the  President  would  undertake  to  expel  Congress  as  an  illegal  body,  he 
could  scarcely  escape  impeachment  upon  a  plea  of  good  motives.  No  tyrant 
ever  yet  reigned  who  did  not  jjlead  good  motives  for  his  usurpations.  But  even 
these,  if  they  could  be  so  in  fact,  never  sanctify  criminal  acts.  As  well  might 
larceny  be  justified  by  a  purpose  to  promote  charitable  objects,  as  violations  of 
the  Constitution  by  professions  of  securing  the  public  interest.  In  both  cases 
the  vvitice  is  illegal,  and  no  circumstances  can  justify  a  criminal  act  purposely 
committed.  Congress  may  withhold  punishment,  or  pat^s  acts  of  indemnity, 
just  as  the  President  may  pardon  crime;  but  criminal  purposes,  studiously  per- 
sisted in,  present  no  case  for  clemency. 

This  subject,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  ordinary  courts,  is  well  understood.  Sedg- 
wick, under  the  caption  '  Good  faith  no  excuse  for  violation  of  statutes,"  says  : 
•'  We  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice  the  rule  that  ignorance  of  the  law 
cannot  be  set  up  in  defence.  All  are  bound  to  know  the  law,  and  this  holds 
good  as  well  in  regard  to  common  as  to  statute  law,  as  well  jn  regard  to  crimi- 
nal as  to  civil  cases.  In  regard  even  to  penal  laws,  it  is  strictly  true  that  igno- 
rance is  no  excuse  for  the  violation  of  a  statute*  So  in  regard  to  frequent 
attempts  which  have  been  made  to  exonerate  individuals  charged  with  disobe- 
dience to  penal  laws  on  the  ground  of  good  faith  or  error  of  judgment,  it  has 
been  held  that  no  excuse  of  this  of  this  kind  xuill  avail  against  the  peremptory 
words  of  a  statute  imposing  a  penalty.  If  the  prohibited  act  has  been  done, 
the  penalty  must  be  paid."t 

And  this  but  reiterates  the  law  of  impeachment,  as  recognized  in  England  and 
the  United  States.  | 

Judges  have'  been  impeached  in  England  "  for  misinterpreting  the  laws,"  and 
the  Earl  o^  Bristol  for  advising  "against  a  war  with. Spain."  Yet  these  were 
doubtless  honest,  but  were  regarded  by  the  impeaching  power  as  mistaken  and 
pernicious  opinions. 

Even  Judge  Humphreys,  who  was  impeached  before  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  for  making  a  secession  speech,  may  have  honestly  believed  what  he  said, 

*  Smith  a.  Brown,  1  Wend.,  231 ;  Caswell  v.  Allen,  7  Johns.,  63. 

t  Sedgwick  on  Stat.  &  Const.  Law,  100;  Calcroft  v.Gibbs,  5  Term  R.,  19;  Morris  v.  People,  3  Denio,  381 — 
402;  People  v.  Brooks,  1  Id.,  457.  On  the  trial  of  Warren  Hastings,  it  was  argued  that  ho  had  exerted  hia 
"  powers  for  the  public  good."  But  the  lord  chancellor  said  "  however  pure  his  intentions  might  have  been,  \i 
he  violated  every  principle  of  morality  and  justice,  he  should  not  think  that  any  public  exigency  ought  to  be 
pleaded  as  a  justification." 

March  2.  Lord  Thurlow  said:  "The  number  of  articles  preferred  were  twenty,  each  containing  a  great 
number  of  allegations;  of  this  number  the  Commons  had  given  no  evidence  upon  fourtoen,  and  upon  very 
inconsidi'rublc  parts  of  three  more." 

"The  impeachment,  however,  might  now  be  said  to  rest  upon  four  points — breach  of  faith,  oppression,  and 
injustice,  as  in  the  two  articles  of  Clieyt  Sing  and  the  Hegum  ;  corruption,  as  in  tlio  article  of  tlie  pre.sents  ; 
and  a  wanton  waste  of  the  public  money  for  private  purposes,  as  iu  the  contracts.  In  considering  iho  first 
two  points,  he  conceivrd  it  would  become  their  lordships  to  reflect  on  the  situation  in  which  Mr.  Hastings  was 
placed.  Possessi-d  of  absolute  power,  thi-  question  would  be,  had  ho  exerted  that  power  for  the  public  good, 
or  had  he  on  any  occasion  been  actualed  by  base  or  malicious  motives?  If  in  the  case  of  Cheyt  Sing  and  the 
Begums,  their  lordships  should  be  of  opinion  that  he  was  neither  malicioun  nor  corrupt,  the  charges  natur- 
ally fell  to  tlie  ground." 

"Tlie  lord  chancellor  concurred  generally  In  what  had  fallen  from  the  noble  and  learned  lord,  but  could  not 
go  quite  so  far  as  to  say  that  Mr.  Hastings  would  bo  justilied  in  any  gross  abuse  of  the  arbitrary  pov/er  which 
he  possessed,  even  though  it  should  be  made  ch'iir  that  he  was  actuated  mdther  by  corrupt  nor  by  malicious 
motives.  Mr.  Hastinps  had  great  power  lodged  in  his  hands  undoubtedly.  He  was  responsible  to  his  coun- 
try for  a  proper  use  of  that  power ;  and  however  pure  his  intentions  tni^bt  have  been,  if  bo  violated  every 
principle  of  morality  and  justice,  ho  should  not  think  that  any  public  exigency  ought  to  be  pleaded  as  a  justi- 
fication. 

March  5.  The  lord  chancellor  said  :  "  The  conduct  of  the  governor  general  in  relation  to  the  transactions 
with  Cheyt  Sing  in  the  year  1781),  appeare<l  tn  l.iiii  to  stand  in  u  different  point  of  view,  anl  to  call  for  other 
considerations.  To  say  the  least  of  that  eoiidurt  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Hastings,  it  merited  a  certain  degree  of 
blame ;  but  how  far  it  might  rise  \\\)  to  a  liigli  crime  and  misdemeanor  would  depend  ou  other  and  future  pro- 
ceedings of  the  governor  general  that  yet  remained  to  be  discussed." 

^In  the  trial  of  Lord  Melville  it  was  insisted  that  his  use  of  the  public  money  was  not  impeachable  unless 
the  motive  was  guilty.  "  The  question  in  the  ease,"  said  the  defence,  "  as  In  all  eases,  is  the  motive  of  the  heart, 
actio  non  est  reus,  nisi  mens  sit  rca — a  person  is  not  guilty  if  his  heart  Is  not  guilty."  (.\spernis  Rep.,  290.)  But 
iu  the  questions  put  to  and  decided  by  the  judges,  the  motive  was  ignored,  and  only  the  legality  of  his  conduct 
decided.^ 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PRESIDENT.  147 

and  might  have  supposed  his  motives  good ;  but  this  consideration  was  so  unim- 
portant that  it  jv^as  never  once  mentioned  on  the  trial. 

The  result  is,  that  an  impeachahle  high  crime  or  misdemeanor  is  one  in  its  nature 
or  consequences  subversive  of  some  fundament  al  or  essential  principle  of  govern- 
ment or  highly  prejudicial  to  the  public  interest,  and  this  may  consist  of  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution,  of  law,  of  an  official  oath,  or  of  duty,  by  an  act 
committed  or  omitted,  or,  without  violating  a  positive 'laic,  by  the  abuse  of  dis- 
cretionary powers  from  improper  motives  or  for  an  improper  purpose. 

It  should  be  understoud,  however,  that  while  this  is  a  proper  definition,  yet 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  power  of  impeachment  is  limited  to  technical 
crimes  or  misdemeanors  only.  It  may  reach  officers  who,  from  incapacity  or 
other  cause,  are  absolutely  iinfit  for  the  performance  of  their  duties,  when  no 
other  remedy  exists,  and  where  the  public  interests  imperatively  demand  it. 

When  no  other  remedy  can  protect  them,  the  interests  of  millions  of  people 
may  not  be  imperilled  from  tender  regard  to  official  tenure,  which  can  only  be 
held  for  their  ruin. 

Mr.  Butler's  speech  occupied  three  hours  in  the  delivery,  with  the  exception 
of  a  recess  of  ten  minutes,  which  was  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Senator 
Wilson,  when  he  had  spoken  about  two  hours.     When  he  concluded — 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  I  am  instructed  by  my  associates  to 
say  that  we  are  ready  to  proceed  with  the  evidence  to  make  good  the  articles  of 
impeachment  exhibited  by  the  House  of  Representatives  against  the  President 
of  the  United  States.     My  associate,  Mr.  Wilson,  will  present  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Johnson.  We  cannot  hear,  Mr.  Chief  Justice.  I  hope  the  honorable 
Manager  will  speak  a  little  louder. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  I  repeat,  for  the  information  of  the  Senate,  that 
the  Managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  are  ready  to  proceed 
with  testimony  to  make  good  the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  against  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
my  associate,  Mr.  Wilson,  will  present  the  testimony. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  managers  will  proceed  with  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  I  wish  to  state  on  behalf  of  the  managers  that,  not- 
withstanding many  of  the  documents  which  we  deem  important  to  be  presented 
in  evidence  have  been  set  out  in  the  exhibits  accompanying  the  answers,  and 
also  in  some  of  the  answers,  we  still  are  of  opinion  that  it  is  proper  for  us  to 
introduce  the  documents  originally  by  way  of  guarding  against  any  mishaps 
that  might  arise  from  imperfect  copies  being  set  out  in  the  answer  and  iu'the 
exhibits. 

I  offer  first,  on  behalf  of  the  managers,  a  certified  copy  of  the  oath  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  which  I  will  read : 

I  do  solemnly  swear  that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the  office  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  will,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

To  which  is  attached  the  following  certificate  : 

I,  Salmon  P.  Chase,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  hereby 
certify  that  on  this  J5th  day  of  April,  IHIw,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  personally  appeared  Andrew  Johnson,  Vice  President,  upon  whom,  by  the  death 
ct  Abraham  Lincoln,  late  President,  the  duties  of  the  office  of  President  of  the  United 
States  have  devolved,  and  took  and  subscribed  the  oath  of  office  abovi;  set  forth. 

SALMON  P.  CHASE. 

C.  J.  S.  C.  U.  S. 

The  document  is  certified  under  the  hand  of  the  acting  Secretary  of  State, 
and  attested  by  the  seal  of  the  department,  as  follows : 


148  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

United  States  of  America,  Department  of  State. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting  : 

I  certify  that  the  document  hereto  annexed  is  a  correct  copy  of  the  original  filed  in  this 
department. 

In  testimony  whereof  I,  Frederick  W.  Seward,  acting  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States,  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State 
to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  12th  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1868,  and  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States  ot  America  the  ninety-second. 

F.  W.  SEWARD.     [SEAL.] 

I  now  offer  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Stanton  as  Secretary  of  War  by  President 

Lincoln.     It  is  as  follows : 

In  Executfve  Session,  Senate  of  the  United  Statfs, 

January  13,  1862. 
The  following  me«!sage  was  received  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  Mr. 
Nicolay,  his  secretary : 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

I  nominate  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  of  Pennsylvania,  to  be  Secretary  of  War,  in  place  of 
Simon  Cameron,  nominated  to  be  minister  to  Russia. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

Executive  Mansion,  January  13,  1862. 

I  next  offer  and  will  read  the  action  of  the  Senate  in  executive  session,  upon 

said  nomination : 

In  Executive  Session,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

January  If),  1862. 

Resolved,  That  the  Senate  advise  and  consent  to  the  appointment'of  Edwin  M.  Stanton, 
of  Pennsylvania,  to  be  Secretary  of  War,  agreeably  to  the  nomination. 

And  this  is  certified  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate,  as  follows  : 
I,  John  W.  Forney,  Secretary  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  do  hereby  certify  that 
the  foregoing  are  true  extracts  from  tlie  Journal  of  the  Senate.  These  extracts  are  made 
and  certified  under  the  authority  of  the  act  approved  8th  August,  1841),  entitled  "An  act 
making  copies  of  papers  certified  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  and  the  Clerk  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  legal  evidence." 

Given  under  my  hand  at  Washington,  this  11th  day  of  March,  1868. 

JOHN  W.  FORNEY, 

Secretary  of  the  Senate. 

T  next  offer  a  copy  of  the  communication  made  to  the  Senate  December  12, 
1867,  by  the  President.  As  this  document  is  somewhat  lengthy,  I  will  not 
read  it  unless  desired.  It  is  the  message  of  the  President  assigning  his  reasons 
for  the  suspension  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Mr.  Stanbhrry    Read  it,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  It  is  as  follows  : 

Communication  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  relating  to  the  suspensio7i  from  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  tiar  of  Edicin  M.  Stanton. 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States : 

On  the  12tli  of  August  last  I  suspended  Mr.  Stanton  from  the  exercise  of  the  office  of  Sec- 
rotary  of  War,  and  on  the  same  day  designated  General  Grant  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War 
ad  interim. 

The  following  are  copies  of  the  Executive  orders : 

"Executive  Mansion, 

"  Washington,  August  12,  1867. 
"Sir:  By  virtue  of  the  powerandauthority  vested  in  me,  as  President,  by  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  you  are  hereby  suspended  from  office  as  Secretary  of  War, 
and  will  cease  to  exercise  any  and  all  functions  pertaining  to  the  same. 

"  You  will  at  once  transfer  to  (Jeneral  Ulysses  S.  Grant,  who  has  this  day  been  authorized 
and  empowed  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  all  records,  books,  papers,  and  other 
public  property  now  in  your  custody  and  charge. 
"  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  U'ar." 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  149 

"  Executive  Mansion, 
"  Washington,  D.  C,  August  12,  1867. 
*'  Sir:  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  suspended  as  Secretary  of  War,  you 
are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  will  at  once 
enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  office. 

"  The  Secretary  of  War  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers, 
and  other  public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 
"  General  Ulysses  S.  Gkant,  Washington,  D.  C." 

The  following  commmiicatioii  was  received  from  Mr.  Stanton: 

"War  Department, 
"  Washingtuu  City,   August  12,  1807. 

"  Sir  :  Your  note  of  this  date  has  been  received,  informing  me  that  by  virtue  of  the  powers 
and  authority  vested  in  you  as  President,  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States, 
I  am  suspended  from  office  as  Secretary  of  War,  and  will  cease  to  exercise  any  and  all  func- 
tions pertaining  to  the  same;  and  also  directing  me  at  once  to  transfer  to  General  Ulysses 
S.  Grant,  who  has  this  day  been  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim,  all  records,  books,  papers,  and  other  public  property  now  in  my  custody  and  charge. 

"  Under  a  sense  of  public  duty  I  am  compelled  to  deny  your  right,  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  without 
legal  cause  to  suspend  me  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  or  the  exercise  of  any  or  all 
functions  pertaining  to  the  same,  or  without  such  advice  and  consent  to  compel  me  to  transfer 
to  any  person  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  public  property  in  my  custody  as  Secretary. 

"  But,  inasmuch  as  the  General  commanding  the  armies  of  the  United  States  has  been 
appointed  ad  interim,  and  has  notified  me  that  he  has  accepted  the  appointment,  I  have  no 
alternative  but  to  submit,  under  protest,  to  superior  force. 

"  To  the  President." 

The  suspension  has  not  been  revoked,  and  the  business  of  the  War  Department  is  con- 
ducted by  the  Secretary  ad  interim.  Prior  to  the  date  of  this  suspension  I  had  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  time  had  arrived  when  it  was  proper  Mr.  Stanton  should  retire  from  my 
cabinet.  The  mutual  confidence  and  accord  which  should  exist  in  such  a  relation  had  ceased. 
I  supposed  that  Mr.  Stanton  was  well  advised  that  his  continuance  in  the  cabinet  was  con- 
trary to  my  wishes,  for  I  had  repeatedly  given  him  so  to  understand  by  every  mode  short  of 
an  express  request  that  he  should  resign.  Having  waited  full  time  for  the  voluntary  action 
of  M.t.  Stanton,  and  seeing  no  manifestation  on  his  part  of  an  intention  to  resign,  I  addressed 
him  the  following  note  on  the  5th  of  August : 

"  Sir  :  Public  considerations  of  a  high  chaiacter  constrain  me  to  say  that  your  resignation 
as  Secretary  of  War  will  be  accepted." 

To  this  note  I  received  the  following  reply : 

"  War  Department, 

"  Washington,  August  5,  1867. 
"  Sir:  Your  note  this  day  has  been  received,  stating  that  public  considerations  of  a  high 
character  constrain  you  to  say  that  my  resignation  as  Secretary  of  War  will  be  accepted. 

"In  reply,  I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  public  considerations  of  a  high  character,  which 
alone  have  induced  me  to  continue  at  the  head  of  this  department,  constrain  me  not  to  resign 
the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  before  the  next  meeting  of  Congress. 

"EDWIN  M.  STANTON, 

"  Secretary  of  War.'''' 

This  reply  of  Mr.  Stanton  was  not  merely  a  declination  of  compliance  with  the  request  for 
his  resignation;  it  was  a  defiance,  and  something  more.  Mr.  Stanton  does  not  content  him- 
selt  with  assuming  that  public  considerations  bearing  upon  his  continuance  in  office  furm  as 
luUy  a  rule  of  action  for  himself  as  for  the  President,  and  that  upon  so  delicate  a  question  as 
the  fatness  of  an  officer  for  continuance  in  his  office,  the  officer  is  as  competent  and  as  impar- 
tial to  decide  as  his  superior,  who  is  responsible  for  his  conduct;  but  he  goes  further,  and 
plainly  intimates  what  he  means  by  "public  considerations  of  a  high  character;"  and  this  is 
nothing  less  than  his  loss  of  confidence  in  his  superior.  He  says  that  these  public  consider- 
ations have  "alone  induced  me  to  continue  at  the  head  of  this  department,"  and  that  they 
"constrain  me  not  to  resign  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  before  the  next  meeting  of  Con- 
gress." 

This  language  is  very  significant.  Mr.  Stanton  holds  the  position  unwillingly.  He  con- 
tinues in  office  only  under  a  sense  of  high  public  duty.  He  is  ready  to  leave  when  it  is  safe  to 
leave,  arid  as  the  danger  he  apprehends  from  his  removal  then  will  not  exist  when  Congress  is 
here,  he  is  constrained  to  remain  during  the  interim.  What,  then,  is  that  danger  which  can 
only  be  averted  by  the  presence  of  Mr.  Stanton  or  of  Congress  ?     Mr.  Stanton  does  not  say 


150 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 


that  "  public  considerations  of  a  hi^li  character"  constrain  him  to  hold  on  to  the  office  indefi- 
nitely. He  does  not  say  that  no  one  other  than  himself  can  at  any  time  "be  fonnd  to  take  his 
place  and  perform  its  duties.  On  the  contrary,  he  expresses  a  desire  to  leave  the  office  at 
the  earliest  moment  consistent  with  these  high  public  considerations.  He  says  in  effect  that 
while  Congress  is  away  he  must  remain,  but  that  when  Congress  is  here  he  can  go.  In  other 
words,  he  has  lost  confidence  in  the  President.  He  is  unwilling  to  leave  the  War  Depart- 
ment in  bis  hands,  or  in  the  hands  of  any  one  the  President  may  appoint  or  designate  to  per- 
form its  duties.  If  ho  resigns,  the  President  may  appoint  a  Secretary  of  War  that  Mr. 
Stanton  does  not  approve.  Therefore,  he  will  not  resign.  But  when  Congress  is  in  session 
the  President  cannot  appoint  a  Secretary  ot  War  which  the  Senate  does  not  approve.  Con- 
sequently, when  Congress  meets  Mr.  Stanton  is  ready  to  resign. 

Whatever  cogency  these  "considerations"  may  have  had  upon  Mr.  Stanton,  whatever 
right  he  may  have  had  to  entertain  such  considerations,  whatever  propriety  there  might  be 
in  the  expression  of  them  to  others,  one  thing  is  certain:  it  was  official  misconduct,  to  say 
the  least  of  it,  to  parade  them  before  his  superior  officer.  Upon  the  receipt  of  this  extraordi- 
nary note  I  only  delayed  the  order  of  suspension  long  enough  to  make  the  necessary  arrange- 
ments to  fill  the  office.  If  this  were  the  only  cause  for  his  suspension,  it  would  be  ample. 
Necessarily  it  nuist  end  our  most  important  official  relations,  for  I  cannot  imagine  a  degree 
of  effrontery  which  would  embolden  the  head  of  a  department  to  take  his  seat  at  the  council 
table  in  the  Executive  Mansion  after  such  an  act.  Nor  can  I  imagine  a  President  so  for- 
getful of  the  proper  respect  and  dignity  which  belong  to  his  office  as  to  submit  to  such  intru- 
sion. I  will  not  do  Mr.  Stanton  the  wrong  to  suppose  that  he  entertained  any  idea  of  offering 
to  act  as  one  of  my  constitutional  advisers  after  that  note  was  written.  There  was  an  interval 
of  a  week  between  that  date  and  the  order  of  suspension,  during  which  two  cabinet  meet- 
ings were  held.  Mr.  Stanton  did  not  present  himself  at  either,  nor  was  he  expected.  On 
the  12th  of  August  Mr.  Stanton  was  notified  of  his  suspension,  and  that  General  Grant  had 
been  authorized  to  take  charge  of  the  department.  In  his  answer  to  this  notification,  of  the 
same  date,  Mr.  Stanton  expresses  himself  as  follows  : 

"  Under  a  sense  of  public  duty  I  am  compelled  to  deny  your  right,  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  suspend  me 
from  office  as  Secretaiy  of  War,  or  the  exercise  of  any  or  all  functions  pertaining  to  the 
same,  or  without  such  advice  and  consent  to  com})el  me  to  transfer  to  any  ])erson  the  records, 
books,  papers,  and  public  property  in  my  custody  as  Secretary.  But  iiuismuch  as  the 
General  commanding  the  armies  of  the  United  States  has  been  appointed  ad  interim,  and  has 
notified  me  that  he  has  accepted  the  appointment,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  submit,  under 
protest,  to  superior  force." 

It  will  not  escape  attention  that  in  bis  note  of  August  5  Mr.  Stanton  stated  that  he  had 
been  constrained  to  continue  in  office,  even  before  he  was  requested  to  resign,  by  considera- 
tions of  a  high  public  character.  In  this  note  of  August  12  a  new  and  ditfertrnt  sen.se  of 
public  duty  compels  him  to  deny  the  President's  right  to  suspend  him  from  office  without 
the  consent  of  the  Senate.  This  last  is  the  public  duty  of  resisting  an  act  contrary  to  law, 
and  he  charges  the  President  with  violation  of  the  law  in  ordering  his  suspension. 

Mr.  Stanton  refers  generally  to  the  "Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  Slates,"  and 
says  that  a  sense  of  public  duty  "  under"  these  compels  him  to  deny  the  right  of  the  l^resi- 
dent  to  suspend  him  from  office.  As  to  his  sense  of  duty  under  the  Constitution,  that  will 
be  considered  in  the  sequel.  As  to  his  sense  of  duty  under  "  the  laws  of  the  United  States," 
he  certainly  caTinot  refer  to  the  law  which  creates  tb.e  War  Department,  for  that  expressly 
confers  upon  th(!  President  the  unlimited  right  to  remove  the  head  of  the  department.  The 
only  other  law  bearing  upon  the  question  is  the  tenure-of-oftice  act,  pa.s.sed  by  Congress  over 
the  presidential  veto  March  2,  I. SOT.  This  is  the  law  which,  under  a  sense  of  public  duty, 
Mr.  Stanton  volunteers  to  defend.  There  is  no  provision  in  this  law  which  compels  any 
officer  coming  within  its  provisions  to  remain  in  oifice.  It  forbids  removals,  but  not  resigna- 
tions. Mr.  Stanton  was  perfectlj'  free  to  resign  at  any  moment,  either  upon  his  own  motion 
or  in  coniplaiice  with  a  re(iuest  or  an  order.  Jt  was  a  matter  of  choice  or  of  taste.  There  was 
nothing  compulsory  in  the  nature  of  legal  obligation.  Nor  does  lio  pui  his  action  upon  that 
imperative  ground.  He  says  ho  acts  under  a  "sense  of  public  duty,"  not  of  legal  obliga- 
tion, conqielling  him  to  hold  oji,  and  leaving  him  no  choice.  The  public  duty  which  is 
upon  liim  arises  from  tlic^  respect  which  h(>  owes  to  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  violated  in 
his  own  case.  He  is,  thtMclore,  compelled  by  this  sense  of  public  duty  to  vindicate  violated 
law  and  to  stand  as  its  champion. 

This  was  not  the  first  occasion  in  which  Mr.  Stanto!),  in  <liscliarge  of  a  public  duty,  was 
called  upon  to  consider  the  provisions  of  that  law.  'J'liat  tenure-ot'-ofHce  law  did  not  ])ass 
without  notice.  Like  other  acts  it  was  seut  to  the  President  for  approval.  As  is  my  custom. 
I  submitted  its  consideration  to  my  cabiiujt  lor  their  advice  upiui  the  question,  whether  I 
should  ap))rove  it  or  not.  It  was  a  grave  ([uestion  of  constitutional  law,  in  which  I  would 
of  course  rely  most  iipon  the  ojiinion  of  tiie  Attorney  (Jeneral  and  of  Mr.  .'<tant(Mi,  who  had 
once  been  AttoriKsy  General.  Every  numiber  of  my  cabiPict  advi.sed  me  that  the  proposed 
law  was  unconstitutional.  All  spoke  without  doubt  or  reservation,  but  Mr.  Stanton's  con- 
demnation of  the  law  was  tlumiost  elaborate  and  emphatic.  He  referred  to  the  constitutional 
provisions,  the  debutes  in  Congress — especially  to  the  speech  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  when  a  sen- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  151 

ator— to  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  ami  to  the  usage  from  the  beginning  of  the  gov- 
ernment through  every  successive  adniinistratiou,  all  concurring  to  establish  the  right  of 
removal  as  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  President.  To  all  these  he  added  the  weight  of 
his  own  deliberate  judgment,  and  advised  me  that  it  was  my  duty  to  defend  the  power  of 
the  President  from  usurpation  and  to  veto  the  law. 

I  do  not  know  when  a  sense  of  public  duty  is  more  imperative  upon  a  head  of  department 
than  upon  such  an  occasion  as  tliis.  He  acts  then  under  the  gravest  obligations  of  law ;  for 
when  he  is  called  upon  by  the  President  for  advice  it  is  the  Constitution  that  spealis  to  him. 
All  his  other  duties  are  left  by  the  Constitution  to  be  regulated  by  statute;  but  this  duty  was 
deemed  so  momentous  that  it  is  imposed  by  the  Constitution  itself.  After  all  this  I  was  not 
prepared  for  the  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Stanton  in  his  note  of  August  12.  I  was  not  prepared 
to  fiud  him  compelled,  by  a  new  and  indefinite  sense  of  public  duty  under  "the  Constitu- 
tion," to  assume  the  vindication  of  a  law  which,  under  the  solemn  obligations  of  public 
duty,  imposed  by  the  Constitution  itself,  he  advised  me  was  a  violatian  of  that  Constitution. 
I  niake  great  allowance  for  a  change  of  opinion,  but  such  a  change  as  this  hardly  falls 
within  the  limits  of  greatest  indulgence.  Where  our  opinions  take  the  shape  of  advice  and 
influence  the  action  of  otheis,  the  utmost  stretch  ot  charity  will  scarcely  justify  us  in 
repudiating  them  when  they  come  to  be  applied  to  ourselves. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  narrative.  I  was  so  much  struck  with  the  full  mastery  of  the 
question  manifested  by  Mr.  Stanton,  and  was  at  the  time  so  fully  occupied  with  the  prepa- 
ration of  another  veto  upon  the  pending  reconstruction  act,  that  I  requested  him  to  prepare 
the  veto  upon  this  tenure-of-otfice  bill.  This  he  declined  on  the  ground  of  physical  disability 
to  undergo,  at  the  time,  the  labor  of  writing,  but  stated  his  readiness  to  furnish  what  aid 
might  be  required  in  the  preparation  of  materials  for  the  paper.  At  the  time  this  subject 
was  before  the  caliiuet  it  seemed  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  as  to  those  members  of  the 
cabinet  who  had  been  appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  their  tenure  of  office  was  not  fixed  by  the 
provisions  of  the  act.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  piint  was  distinctly  decided  ;  but  I  well 
recollect  that  it  was  suggested  by  one  member  of  the  cabinet  who  was  appointed  by  Mr. 
Lincoln,  and  that  no  dissent  was  expressed. 

Whether  the  point  was  well  taken  or  not  did  not  seem  to  me  of  any  consbquence,  for  the 
unanimous  expression  of  opinion  against  the  constitutionality  and  policy  of  the  act  was  so 
decided  that  1  felt  no  concern,  so  far  as  the  act  had  reference  to  the  gentlemen  then  present, 
that  I  would  be  embarrassed  in  the  future.  The  bill  had  not  then  become  a  law.  The  lim- 
itation upon  the  power  of  removal  was  not  yet  imposed,  and  there  was  yet  time  to  make  any 
changes.  If  any  one  of  these  gentlemen  had  then  said  to  me  that  he  would  avail  himself 
of  the  provisions  of  that  bill  in  case  it  became  a  law.  I  should  not  have  hesitated  a  moment 
as  to  his  removal.  No  pledge  was  then  expressly  given  or  required.  But  there  are  circum- 
stances when  to  give  an  express  pledge  is  uot  necessary,  and  when  to  require  it  is  an  imputa- 
tion of  possible  bad  faith.  I  felt  that  if  these  gentlemen  came  within  the  purview  of  the  bill 
it  was,  as  to  them,  a  dead  letter,  and  that  none  of  them  would  ever  take  refuge  under  its 
provisions.  I  now  pass  to  another  subject.  When,  on  the  loth  of  April,  1865,  the  duties  of 
the  presidential  office  devolved  upon  me,  I  found  a  full  cabinet  of  seven  members,  all  of  them 
selected  by  Mr.  Lincoln.  I  made  no  change.  On  the  contrary,  I  shortly  alterward  ratified 
a  change  determined  upon  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  but  not  perfected  at  his  death,  and  admitted  his 
appointee,  Mr.  Harlan,  in  the  place  of  Mr.  Usher,  who  was  in  office  at  the  time. 

The  great  duty  of  the  time  was  to  re-establish  government,  law,  and  order  in  the  insur- 
rectionary States.  Congress  was  then  in  recess,  and  the  sudden  overthrow  of  the  rebellion 
required  speedy  action.  This  grave  subject  had  engaged  the  attention  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the 
last  days  of  his  life,  and  the  plan  according  to  which  it  was  to  be  managed  had  been  prepared 
and  was  ready  for  adoption.  A  leading  feature  of  that  plan  was  that  it  should  be  carried  out 
by  the  executive  authority,  for,  so  far  as  I  have  been  informed,  neither  Mr.  Lincoln  nor  any 
member  of  his  cabinet  doubted  his  authority  to  act  or  proposed  to  call  an  extra  session  of 
Congress  to  do  the  work.  The  first  business  transacted  in  cabinet  after  I  became  President 
was  this  unfinished  business  of  my  predecessor.  A  plan  or  scheme  of  reconstruction  was 
produced  which  had  been  prepared  for  Mr.  Lincoln  by  Mr.  Stanton,  his  Secretary  of  War. 
It  ^vas  approved,  and,  at  the  earliest  moinen  t  pracficabh',  was  applied  in  the  f(]rin  of  a  proc- 
lamation to  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  and  afterward  became  the  basis  of  action  in  turn  for 
the  other  States. 

Upon  the  examination  of  Mr.  Stanton  before  the  impeachment  committee  he  was  asked  the 
following  question : 

"  Did  any  one  of  the  cabinet  express  a  doubt  of  the  power  of  the  executive  branch  of  the 
government  to  reorganize  State  governments  which  had  been  in  rebellion  without  the  aid  of 
Congress  ?" 
He  answered : 

"None  whatever.  I  had  myself  entertained  no  doubt  of  the  authority  of  the  President  to 
take  measures  for  the  organization  of  the  rebel  States  on  the  plan  proposed  duiing  the  vaca- 
tion of  Congress,  and  agreed  in  the  plan  specified  in  the  proclamation  in  the  case  of  North 
Carolina." 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  act  of  my  administration  for  which  I  have  been  more  denounced  than 
this.     It  was  not  originated  by  me ;  but  I  shrink  from  no  responsibility  on  that  account,  for 


152  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  plan  approved  itself  to  my  own  judg:ment,  and  I  did  not  hesitate  to  cany  it  into  execu- 
tion. Thus  far,  and  upon  this  vital  policy,  there  was  a  perfect  accord  between  the  cabinet 
and  myself,  aud  I  saw  no  necessity  for  a  change.  As  tmie  passed  on  there  was  developed 
an  iinforfniiate  ditlVrence  of  opinion  and  of  policy  between  Congress  aud  the  President  upon 
this  same  sul>ject  aud  upon  the  ultimate  basis  upon  which  the  reconstruction  of  these  States 
should  proceed,  especially  upon  the  question  of  negro  suffrage.  Upon  this  point  three  mem- 
bers of  the  cabinet  found  themselves  to  be  in  sympathy  with  Congress  They  reuiained  only 
long  enougii  to  sec  that  the  difference  of  policy  could  not  be  reconciled.  They  felt  that  they 
should  remain  no  longer,  and  a  high  sense  of  duty  and  propriety  constrained  them  to  resign 
their  positions.  We  parted  with  mutual  respect  for  the  sincerity  of  each  other  in  opposite 
opinions,  and  mutual  regret  that  the  difference  was  on  points  so  vital  as  to  require  a  severance 
of  official  relations.  This  was  in  the  sununer  of  1866.  The  subsequent  sessions  of  Congress 
developed  new  complications  when  the  suffrage  bill  for  the  District  of  Columbia  and  recon- 
struction acts  of  March  2  aud  March  23,  1867,  all  passed  over  the  veto.  It  was  in  cabi- 
net consultations  upon  these  bills  that  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  the  must  vital  points 
was  developed.  Upon  these  questions  there  was  perfect  accord  between  all  the  members  of 
the  cabinet  and  my.self,  except  Mr.  Stanton.  He  stood  alone,  aud  the  diffeience  of  opinion 
could  not  be  reconciled.  Tiiat  unity  of  opinion  which  upon  great  questions  of  public  policy 
or  administration  is  so  essential  to  the  E.xecutive  was  gone. 

I  do  not  claim  that  the  head  of  a  department  should  have  no  other  opinions  than  those  of 
the  President.  He  has  the  same  right,  in  the  conscientious  discharge  of  duty,  to  entertain 
and  express  his  own  opinions  as  has  the  President.  What  1  do  claim  is  that  the  President 
is  the  responsible  head  of  the  admiuistration,  and  when  the  opinions  of  a  head  of  department 
are  irreconcilably  opposed  to  those  of  the  President  in  grave  matters  of  policy  and  adminis- 
tration there  is  btit  one  result  which  can  solve  the  difficulty,  aud  that  is  a  severance  of  the 
official  relation.  This,  in  the  past  history  of  the  government,  has  always  been  the  rule  ;  and 
it  is  a  wise  fine;  for  such  differences  of  opinion  among  its  members  must  impair  the  efficiency 
of  any  administration. 

I  have  n(jw  refeiTed  to  the  general  grounds  upon  which  the  withdrawal  of  Mr.  Stanton 
from  my  admiuistration  seemed  to  me  to  be  proper  and  necessary  ;  but  I  cannot  omit  to  state 
a  special  ground  which,  if  it  stood  alone,  would  vindicate  my  action. 

The  sanguinary  riot  which  occurred  in  the  city  of  Now  Orlrans  on  the  30th  of  August, 
1666,  justly  aroused  public  indignation  and  public  inquiry,  not  only  as  to  those  who  were 
engaged  iu  it,  but  as  to  those  who,  more  or  less  remotely,  might  be  held  to  responsibility  for 
its  occurrence.  I  need  not  remind  the  Senate  of  the  effort  made  to  (ix  that  responsibility  on 
the  President.  The  charge  was  openly  made,  and  again  aud  again  reiterated  through  all  the 
land,  tliat  the  President  was  warned  iu  time  but  refused  to  interfere. 

By  telegrams  from  the  lieutenant  governor  and  attorney  general  of  Louisiana,  dated  the 
27  and  28th  of  August,  I  was  advised  that  a  body  of  delegates,  claiming  to  be  a  constitu- 
tional convention,  were  about  to  assemble  iu  New  Orleans  ;  tliat  tlie  matter  was  before  the 
grand  jury,  but  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  execute  civil  |)rocess  without  a  riot,  aud  this 
question  was  asked :  "Is  the  military  to  interfere  to  prevent  process  of  court?"  This  ques- 
tion was  asked  at  a  time  when  the  civil  courts  were  in  the  full  exercise  of  their  authority, 
and  the  answer  sent  by  telegraph,  on  the  same  28th  of  August,  was  this  : 

"The  military  will  be  expected  to  sustain  and* not  to  interfere  witii  the  proceedings  of  the 
courts." 

On  the  same  28th  of  August  the  following  telegram  was  sent  to  Mr.  Stanton  by  Majfir  Gen- 
eral Baird,  then  (owing  to  the  absence  of  General  Sheridan)  iu  command  of  the  military  at 
New  Orleans : 

"Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War  : 

"  A  convention  has  been  called,  with  the  sanction  of  Governor  Wells,  to  meet  here  on  Mon- 
day. The  lieutenant  governor  and  city  autlioritics  think  it  unlawful,  aud  propose  to  break 
it  up  by  arresting  the  delegates.  I  have  given  no  orders  on  the  subject,  but  liave  warned 
the  parties  that  I  could  not  countenance  or  permit  such  action  without  instructions  to  that 
effect  from  tiie  President.     Please  instruct  me  at  once  by  telegraph." 

The  2rttii  of  August  was  on  Saturday.  Tlie  next  morning,  the  2i)th,  this  despatch  was 
received  by  Mr.  Stanton,  at  his  n-sidcnce  iu  this  city.  He  took  no  action  up(m  it,  and  neither 
sent  instructions  to  (JcMieral  JJaird  himself  nor  presimted  it  to  me  for  such  instructions.  On 
the  next  day  (Monday)  the  riot  occurred.  I  never  saw  this  despatch  from  General  Baird 
until  some  ten  days  or  two  weeks  after  the  riot,  when,  upon  my  call  for  all  the  despatclies, 
with  a  view  to  tlieir  publication,  Mr.  Stanton  sent  it  to  me.  These  facts  all  appear  iu  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Stanton  befoic!  tlie  .ludiciary  (Jominittee  iu  the  inipeachnu'nt  iuvestigaticm. 
On  the  liOth,  tin;  day  of  the  riot,  and  alter  it  was  suppressed,  (ieneral  Baird  \vrote  to  ilr. 
Stanton  a  long  letter,  from  which  I  make  the  following  extracts  : 

"  Siu  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  a  very  serious  riot  occtu'red  here  to-day.  I 
had  not  been  applied  to  by  the  convention  tor  protection,  but  the  lieutenant  governor  and  the 
mayor  had  freely  consulted  with  me,  aud  I  was  so  fully  convinced  that  it  was  so  strongly 
the  intent  of  the  city  authorities  to  preserve  the  peace,  iu  order  to  prevent  military  iuterler- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  153 

ence,  that  I  did  not  regard  an  outbreak  as  a  thing  to  be  apprehended.  The  lieutenant  governor 
had  assured  me  that  even  if  a  writ  of  arrest  was  issued  by  the  court,  the  sheriff  would  not 
attempt  to  serve  it  without  my  permission,  and  for  to  day  they  designed  to  suspend  it.  I 
enclose  herewith  copies  of  my  correspondence  with  the  mayor,  and  of  a  despatch  which  the 
lieutenant  governor  claims  to  have  received  from  the  President.  I  regret  that  no  ri'j)ly  to  my 
despatch  to  you  of  Saturday  has  yet  readied  me.    General  Sheridan  is  still  absent  iu  Texas."' 

The  despatch  of  General  Baird  of  the  28th  asks  for  immediate  instructions,  and  his  letter 
of  the  30th,  after  detailing  the  terrible  riot  which  had  just  happened,  ends  with  the  expres- 
sion of  regret  that  the  instructions  which  he  asked  for  were  not  sent.  It  is  not  the  fault  or 
the  error  or  the  omission  of  the  President  that  this  military  commander  was  left  without 
instructions ;  but  for  all  omissions,  for  all  errors,  for  all  failures  to  instruct,  when  instruction 
might  have  averted  this  calamity,  the  President  was  openly  and  persistently  held  responsible. 
Instantly,  without  waiting  for  proof,  the  delinquency  of  the  President  was  heralded  in  every 
form  of  utterance.  Mr.  Stanton  knew  then  that  the  President  was  not  responsible  for  this 
delinquency.  The  exculpation  was  in  his  power,  but  it  was  not  given  by  him  to  the  public, 
and  only  to  the  President  in  obedience  to  a  requisition  for  all  the  despatches. 

No  one  regrets  more  than  myself  that  General  Baird's  request  was  not  brought  to  my 
notice.  It  is  clear,  from  his  despatch  and  letter,  that  if  the  Secretary  of  War  had  given  him 
proper  instructions  the  riot  which  arose  on  the  assembling  of  the  convention  would  have  been 
averted.  There  may  be  those  ready  to  say  that  I  would  have  given  no  instructions,  even  if 
the  despatch  had  reached  me  in  time ;  but  all  must  admit  that  I  ought  to  have  had  the  oppor- 
tunity. 

The  following  is  the  testimony  given  by  Mr.  Stanton  before  the  impeachment  investigation 
committee  as  to  the  despatch: 

"  Q.  Referring  to  the  despatch  of  the  28th  of  July  by  General  Baird,  I  ask  you  whether 
that  despatch,  on  its  receipt,  was  communicated  ? 

"A.  I  received  that  despatch  on  Sunday  forenoon  ;  I  examined  it  carefully  and  considered 
the  question  presented ;  I  did  not  see  that  I  could  give  any  instructions  different  from  the 
line  of  action  which  General  Baird  proposed,  and  made  no  answer  to  the  despatch. 

"Q.  I  see  it  stated  that  this  was  received  at  ten  o'clock  and  twenty  minutes  p.  m.  Was 
that  the  hour  at  which  it  was  received  by  you  ? 

"A.  That  is  the  date  of  its  reception  in  the  telegraph  ofhce  Saturday  night.  I  received  it 
on  Sunday  forenoon,  at  my  residence  ;  a  copy  of  the  despatch  was  furnished  to  the  President 
several  days  afterward,  along  with  all  the  other  despatches  and  communications  on  that  sub- 
ject, but  it  was  not  furnished  by  me  before  that  time  ;  I  suppose  it  may  have  been  ten  or 
fifteen  days  afterward. 

"Q.  The  President  himself  being  in  correspondence  with  those  parties  upon  the  same 
subject,  would  it  not  have  been  proper  to  have  advised  him  of  the  reception  of  that  despatch  ? 

"A.  I  know  nothing  about  his  correspondence,  and  know  nothing  about  any  correspond- 
ence except  this  one  despatch.  We  had  intelligence  of  the  riot  on  Thursday  morning.  The 
riot  had  taken  place  on  Monday." 

It  is  a  difficult  matter  to  define  all  the  relations  which  exist  between  the  heads  of  depart- 
ment and  the  President.  The  legal  relations  are  well  enough  defined.  The  Constitution 
places  these  officers  iu  the  relation  of  his  advisers  when  he  calls  upon  them  for  advice.  The 
acts  of  Congress  go  further.  Take,  for  example,  the  act  of  1789,  creating  the  War  Depart- 
ment.    It  provides  that — 

"There  shall  be  a  principal  officer  therein,  to  be  called  the  Secretary  for  the  Department 
of  War,  who  shall  perform  and  execute  such  duties  as  shall,  from  time  to  time,  be  enjoined 
on  or  trusted  to  him  by  the  President  of  the  United  States;  "  and  furthermore,"  the  said  prin- 
cipal officer  shall  conduct  the  business  of  the  said  department  in  such  manner  as  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  shall,  from  time  to  time,  order  and  instruct." 

Provision  is  also  made  for  the  appointment  of  an  inferior  officer  by  the  head  of  the  depart- 
ment, to  be  called  the  chief  clerk,  "  who,  whenever  said  principal  officer  shall  be  removed 
from  office  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,"  shall  have  the  charge  and  custody  of  the 
books,  records,  and  papers  of  the  department. 

The  legal  relation  is  analogous  to  that  of  principal  agent.  It  is  the  President  upon  whom 
the  Constitution  devolves,  as  head  of  the  executive  department,  the  duty  to  see  that  the  laws 
are  faithfully  executed  ;  but  as  he  cannot  execute  them  in  person  he  is  allowed  to  select  his 
agents,  and  is  made  responsible  for  their  acts  within  just  limits.  So  complete  is  this  pre- 
sumed delegation  of  authority  in  the  relation  of  a  head  of  department  to  the  President  that 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  have  decided  that  an  order  made  by  a  head  of 
department  is  presumed  to  be  made  by  the  President  liiin.self. 

The  principal,  upon  whomsirch  responsibility  is  placed  for  the  acts  of  a  subordinate,  ought 
to  be  left  as  free  as  possible  in  the  matter  of  selection  and  of  dismissal.  To  hold  him  to 
responsibility  for  an  officer  beyond  his  control;  to  leave  the  question  of  the  fitness  of  such 
an  agent  to  be  decided  for  him  and  not  by  him  ;  to  allow  such  a  subordinate,  when  the  Pres- 
ident, moved  by  "public  considerations  of  a  high  character,"  requests  his  resignation  to 
assume  for  himself  an  equal  right  to  act  upon  his  own  views  of  "public  considerations," 
and  to  make  his  own  conclusions  paramount  to  those  of  the  President — to  allow  all  this  is  to 
reverse  the  just  order  of  administration,  and  to  place  the  subordinate  above  the  superior. 


154  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

There  are,  however,  other  relations  between  the  President  and  a  head  of  department 
beyond  these  defined  lefral  relations  which  necessarily  attend  them,  though  not  expressed. 
Chief  among  these  is  mutual  confidence.  This  relation  is  so  delicate  tliat  it  is  sometimes 
hard  to  say  when  or  how  it  ceases.  A  single  flagrant  act  may  end  it  at  once,  and  then  there 
is  no  difficulty.  But  confidence  may  be  just  as  effectually  destroyed  by  a  series  of  causes  too 
subtle  for  demonstration.  As  it  is  a  plant  of  slow  growth,  so,  too,  it  may  be  slow  in  decay. 
Such  has  been  the  process  here.  I  will  not  pretend  to  say  what  acts  or  omissions  have 
broken  up  this  relation.  They  are  hardly  susceptible  of  statement,  and  still  less  of  formal 
proof.  Nevertheless,  no  one  can  read  the  correspondence  of  the  5th  of  August  without  being 
convinced  that  this  relation  was  effectually  gone  on  both  sides,  and  that,  while  the  President 
was  unwilling  to  allow  Mr.  Stanton  to  remain  in  his  administration,  Mr.  Stanton  was 
equally  unwilling  to  allow  the  President  to  carry  on  his  administration  without  his  presence. 
In  the  great  debate  which  took  place  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  in  1789,  on  the  first 
organization  of  the  principal  departments,  Mr.  Madison  spoke  as  follows: 

"It  is  evidently  the  intention  of  the  Constitution  that  the  First  Magistrate  shoirld  be 
responsible  for  the  executive  department.  So  far,  therefore,  as  we  do  not  make  the  officers 
who  are  to  aid  him  in  the  duties  of  that  department  responsible  to  him,  he  is  not  responsible 
to  the  country.  Again,  is  there  no  danger  that  an  officer,  when  he  is  appointed  by  the  con- 
currence of  the  Senate,  and  his  friends  in  that  body,  may  choose  rather  to  risk  his  establish- 
ment on  the  favor  of  that  branch  than  rest  it  upon  the  discharge  of  his  duties  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  executive  branch,  which  is  constitutionally  authorized  to  inspect  and  control  his 
conduct  ?  And  if  it  should  happen  that  the  officers  connect  themselves  with  the  Senate,  tl  ey 
may  mutually  support  each  other,  and  for  want  of  efficacy  reduce  the  power  of  the  President 
to  a  mere  vapor,  in  which  case  his  responsibility  would  be  annihilated,  and  the  expectation 
of  it  is  unjust.  The  high  executive  officers  joined  in  cabal  with  the  Senate  would  lay  the 
foundation  of  discord,  and  end  in  an  assumption  of  the  executive  power,  only  to  be  removed 
by  a  revolution  of  the  governm'ent." 

Mr.  Sedgwick,  in  the  same  debate,  referring  to  the  proposition  that  a  head  of  department 
should  only  be  removed  or  suspended  by  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate,  uses  this  language  : 

"But  if  proof  be  necessary,  what  is  then  the  consequence?  Why,  in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  where  the  case  is  very  clear  to  the  mind  of  the  President  that  the  man  ought  to  be 
removed,  the  effect  cannot  be  produced  because  it  is  absolutely  iinpossible  to  produce  the 
necessary  evidence.  Are  the  Senate  to  proceed  without  evidence?  Some  gentlemen  eon- 
tend  not.  Then  the  object  will  be  lost.  Shall  a  man,  under  these  circumstances,  be  saddled 
upon  the  President  who  has  been  appointed  for  no  other  purpose  but  to  aid  the  President  in 
performing  certain  duties  ?  Shall  he  be  continued,  I  ask  again,  against  the  will  of  the  Pres- 
ident? If  he  is,  where  is  the  responsibility?  Are  you  to  look  for  it  in  the  President,  who 
has  no  control  over  the  officer,  no  power  to  remove  him  if  he  acts  uuieclingly  or  unfaithfully? 
Without  you  make  him  responsible  you  weaken  and  destroy  the  strength  and  beauty  of  your 
system.  What  is  to  be  done  in  cases  which  can  only  be  known  from  a  long  acquaintance 
with  the  conduct  of  an  officer?" 

I  had  indulged  the  hope  that  upon  the  assembling  of  Congress  Mr.  Stanton  would  have 
ended  this  unpleasant  complication  according  to  the  intimation  given  in  his  note  of  August 
12.  The  duty  which  I  have  felt  myself  called  upon  to  perform  was  by  no  means  agreeable ; 
but  I  feel  that  I  am  not  responsible  for  the  controversy  or  for  the  consequences. 

Unpleasant  as  this  necessary  change  in  my  cabinet  has  been  to  me,  upon  personal  consid- 
erations, I  have  the  consolation  to  be  assured  that,  so  far  as  the  public  interests  are  involved, 
there  is  no  cause  for  regret.  Salutary  reforms  have  been  introduced  by  the  Secretary  ad 
inttriw,  and  great  reductions  of  expeuses  have  been  effected  under  his  administration  of  the 
War  Department,  to  the  saving  of  millions  to  the  treasury. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Washikgton,  December  12,  1867. 

Be^o-e  t.lie  reading  was  completed — 

Mr.  Shf.rman.  If  the  manager  will  paupe  now,  I  desire  to  submit  a  motion 
to  adjourn,  that  the  Senate  may  transact  some  business  of  a  Lgi.-^lntive  character. 

Mr.  SuMNKK.  I  will  suggest  to  my  friend  that  the  reading  of  this  document 
was  called  for,  and  it  has  not  yet  been  finished. 

Mr.  JoH.M.soN.  We  can  consider  it  as  read  through. 

Mr.  SuKRMAN.  I  understand  that  the  counsel  are  willing  to  waive  the  further 
reading. 

Mr.  STAXnERY.  As  far  as  avc  arc  concerned,  we  will  dL-^pense  with  its  fur- 
ther reading  if  it  is  to  be  considered  in  evidence, 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Then  1  will  simply  read  the  certificate. 

Mr.  Stanhkry.  That  is  unnecessary.     We  agree  to  it. 

Mr.  SuKRiNiAN.  I  move  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment, 
adjouru  until  to-morrow  at  the  usual  hour. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  155 

Mr.  Sumner.  I  would  suggest  10  o'clock. 

Mr.  Sherman.  The  hour  is  fixed  by  tlie  rule. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  hour  of  meeting  is  fixed  by  the  rule,  and  the 
motion  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  is  not  in  order.  The  Senator  from 
Ohio  iTioves  to  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  half  past  12  o'clock. 

Several  Senators.  No  ;   12  o'clock  ;  the  rule  fixes  12. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Senator  from  Ohio  moves  an  adjournment  until 
to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

The  question  being  put,  the  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Chief  Justice 
declared  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
at  12  o'clock. 


Tuesday,  MarcJi  31,  1868. 

At  five  minutes  past  12  o'clock  p.  m.  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United 
States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  and  took  the  chair. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  open  the  court  by  procla- 
mation. 

The  Sergeantat-arms.  Hear  ye,  hear  ye,  hear  ye:  all  persons  are  com- 
manded to  keep  silent  while  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  silting  for  the 
trial  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  exhibited  by  the  House  of  Representatives 
against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  notify  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

The  President's  counsel,  Messrs.  Stanbery,  Curtis,  Evarts,  Nelson,  and 
Groesbeck,  entered  the  chamber  and  took  the  seats  assigned  to  them.- 

At  12  o'clock  and  seven  minutes  p.  m.  the  Sergeant-at-arms  announced 
the  presence  of  the  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  they  were  conducted  to  the  seats  assigned  to  them. 

Immediately  after,  the  presence  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives was  announced,  and  the  members  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House, 
headed  by  Mr.  E.  B.  Washburne,  of  Illinois,  the  chairman  of  that  committee, 
and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker  and  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
entered  the  Senate  chamber  and  took  the  seats  prepared  f)r  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, you  will  proceed  with  your  evidence  in  support  of  the  articles  of 
impeachment.     Senators  will  please  to  give  their  attention. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Mr.  President  and 'Senators,  in  continuation  of  the 
documentary  evidence,  I  now  ofi'er  the  resolution  passed  by  the  Senate  in  exec- 
utive session  in  response  to  the  message  of  the  President  notifying  the  St^nate 
of  the  suspension  of  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  as  Secretary  of  War,  as  follows  : 

In  Executive  Sbssion,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

January  13,  1868. 
Resolved,  That  having  cousidered  the  evidence  and  reasons  given  by  the  President  in  his 
report  of  the  12th  December,  18(i7,  for  the  suspension  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War 
of  Edwin  M.  Stautou,  the  Senate  do  not  concur  in  such  suspension. 
And  following  order : 

In  Executive  Se.ssion,  Senate  op  the  United  States, 

January  13,  1868. 
Ordered,  That  the  Secretary  forthwith  commimicate  an  official  and  authenticated  copy  of 
the  resolution  of  the  Senate  non-concurring'  in  the  suspension  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton  as  Sec- 
retary of  War,  this  day  adapted,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  said  Edwiu 
M.  Stanton,  and  also  to  the  .said  U.  S.  Grant,  the  Secretary  of  War  ud  inlerim. 
And  certified  as  follows  : 

I,  John  W\  Forney,  Secretary  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  do  hereby  certify  that  the 
foregoing  are  true  extracts  from  the  Journal  of  the  Senate. 


156  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

These  extracts  are  made  and  certified  iiuder  the  autliority  of  the  act  approved  8th  Angngt, 
1846,  entitled  "An  act  making-  copies  of  papers  certified  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  and 
the  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Kepreseiitatives  legal  evidence." 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  Washington,  this  J  1th  day  of  March,  186!^. 

[SEAL.]  J.  W.  FORNEY, 

Secretary  of  the  Senate. 

I  next  produce  and  offer  as  evidence  the  following  extract  from  the  Journal 
of  the  Senate : 

In  Executive  Session,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

February  2],  18G8. 
The  following  message  was  received  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  Mr. 
Moore,  his  secretary: 

Washington,  D.  C,  FthruaryZl,  1868. 
To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

On  the  12th  day  of  August,  1867,  by  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  the  Presi- 
dent by  the.  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  I  suspended  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from 
the  office  of  Secretary  of  War.  In  farther  exercise  of  the  power  and  authority  so  vested  in 
the  President,  I  ha^■e  this  day  removed  Mr.  Stanton  from  the  office,  and  designated  the  Adju- 
tant General  of  the  anny  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim. 

Copies  of  the  communications  upon  this  subject,  addressed  to  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  Adju- 
tant General,  are  herewith  transmitted  for  the  information  of  the  Senate. 

ANDREW"  JOHNSON. 

The  copies  attached  are  as  follows  : 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  D.  C, 

February  2\,  1868. 

Sir  :  By  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  me  as  President  by  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  you  are  hereby  removed  from  office  as  Secretary  for  the 
Department  of  War,  and  your  functions  as  such  will  terminate  upon  the  receipt  of  this  com- 
munication. 

You  wil^  transfer  to  Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  General  of  the 
army,  who  has  this  day  been  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim,  all  record*,  books,  papers,  and  other  property  now  in  your  custody  and  charge. 
Respectfully  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  D.  C, 

February  21,  1868. 

Sir:  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  removed  from  the  office  as  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary 
of  War  ad  interim,  and  will  immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to 
that  ofiice. 

Mr.  Stanton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other 
public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 
Respectfully  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas, 

Adjutant  General  United  States  Army,  Washington,  D.  C. 

To  these  papers  is  appended  this  certificate : 

I,  John  W.  Forney,  Secretary  of  the  Senate  of, the  Xlnited  States,  do  hereby  certify  that 
the  foregoing  is  an  extract  from  the  journal  of  the  Senate. 

This  extract  is  made  and  certitied  under  the  autliority  of  the  act  approved  August  8,  1846, 
entitled  "An  act  making  copies  of  papers  certified  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  and  the 
Clerk  of  the  House  of  Repn^sentativus  legal  evidence." 

Given  under  my  hand  ut  Washington  this  Nth  day  of  March,  l^S. 

[SEAL.]  J.  W.  FORNEY, 

Secretary  of  the  Senate. 

I  now  offer  an  extract  from  the  Journal  of  llie  Senate,  showing  the  action 

taken  by  the  Senate  on  the  message  notifying  that  body  of  the  removal  of  the 

Secretary  of  War  and  the  appointment  of  a  ."-ecretary  of  W;ir  ad  interim  : 

In  Executive  Session,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

February  2\,  1868. 

Whereas  the  Senate  have  received  and  considered  the  communication  of  the  President 
stating  that  he  had  removed  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  and  had  designated  the 
Adjutant  General  of  the  army  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  :  Therefore, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  157 

ResoltPil  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  That  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States  the  President  has  no  power  to  remove  the  Secretary  of  War  and  to  designate 
any  other  officer  to  perform  the  duties  of  that  office  ad  interim. 

In  Executive  SessicIn,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

February  2\,  1 86S. 
Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  is  hereby  directed  to  communicate  copies  of 
the  foiejjoiufj  resolution  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  Secretary  of  VVar,_aud 
to  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  army  of  the  United  States. 

To  these  papers  this  certificate  is  attached : 

I,  John  W.  Forney,  Secretary  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  do  hereby  certify  that 
the  foregoinp:  are  true  extracts  from  the  Journal  of  the  Senate. 

These  extracts  are  made  and  certified  lander  the  authority  of  the  act  approved  8th  August, 
1846,  entitled  "An  act  making  copies  of  papers  certified  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  and 
the  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives  legal  evidence." 

Given  under  my  hand  at  Washiogtou,  this  llth  day  of  March,  1868. 

[SEAL.]  J.  W.  FORNEY, 

Srciftaiy  of    III'.  Spnale. 

I  now  offer  an  authenticated  copy  of  the  commission  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton  as 
Secretary  of  War,  and  will  here  state  that  this  is  the  only  commission  under 
which  we  claim  that  he  has  acted  as  Secretary  of  War: 

Abraham    Lincoln,   President  of  the   United   States  of  America,  to  all   who  shall   see  these 

presents,  greeting : 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  patriotism,  integrity,  and 
abilities  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  I  have  nouiinated,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  ot 
the  Senate  do  appoint  him  to  be  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  and  do  authorize 
and  empower  him  to  execute  and  fulfil  the  duties  of  that  office  according  to  law,  and  to  hold 
the  said  office  with  all  the  powers,  privileges,  and  emoluments  to  the  same  of  right  apper- 
taining unto  him,  the  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  lor  the  time  being. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the  1.5th  day  of  January,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  18(32,  aud  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the  eighty -sixth. 

[SEAL.]  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

By  the  President : 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD, 

Secretary  of  State. 

United  States  of  America, 

Department  of  State. 
To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting : 

I  certify  that  the  document  hereunto  annexed  is  a  true  copy  from  tire  records  of  this 
department. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I,  William  H.  S'-ward,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  have 
hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State  to  be  affixed. 

Dune  at  the  city  of  Washington  this  2 1st  day  of  March,  A.  D.  18G8,  and  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States  of  America  the  uiuety-second. 

[SEAL.]  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  will  the  Senate  allow  me  to  call  in  a 
witness,  William  J.  McDonald,  of  Washington]  Mr.  Sergeant-at-arms,  is  he 
in  attendance  ?  I  do  not  know  but  that  the  managers  will  have  to  ask  that  the 
witnesses  be  allowed  to  come  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  because  there  will 
otherwise  be  some  delay  in  calling  them.  I  believe  the  6ergeant-at-arras  has 
given  them  a  room. 

The  Chikf  Ju.stice.  Unless  the  Senate  otherwise  orders,  the  witnesses 
will  remain  in  their  room  until  they  are  called. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.   I  only  spoke  of  the  delay. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Mr.  McDonald  is  present.  The  witness  will  stand  on 
the  left  of  the  Chair  when  examii.ed. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  move  that  this  witness  be  sworn. 


158  IMPEACnMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Senate  administered  the  following  oath  to  Mr.  McDonald, 
and  to  each  of  the  other  witnesses  as  sworn  : 

"Toil  do  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  case  now  depending  between  the 
United  States  and  Andrew  Johnson  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth :  so  help  you  God." 

William  J.  McDonald,  heing  sworn,  was  examined  as  follows  : 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  State  your  name  and  office. 

Answer.  William  J.  McDonald,  chief  clerk  of  the  Senate. 
Q.  Will  you  look  at  that  paper  [exhibiting  a  paperj  and  read  the  certificate 
that  appears  to  be  signed  by  your  name  ? 
A.  It  is  as  follows  : 

Office  Secretary  S'enate  United  States. 

Washington,  t'ebruary  27,  1868. 
An  attested  copy  of  the  foregoing  resolution  was  left  by  me  at  the  office  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States  in  the  Executive  Mansion,  he  not  being^preseut,  about  nine  o'clock 
p.  m.,  on  the  13th  of  January,  1868. 

w.  J.  Mcdonald, 

Chief  Clerk  Senate  United  States. 

Q.  Is  that  certificate  a  correct  one  of  the  acts  done  ? 
A.  That  is  a  correct  certificate  of  the  acts  done. 
Q.  And  the  paper  was  left  in  accordance  as  that  certificate  states  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlbr.  I  have  nothing  further  to  ask  the  witness. 
The  Chief  Justice.  Are  there  any  questions  to  be  put  on  the  part  of  the 
accused  l 
Mr.  Stanbery  and  Mr.  Curtis.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  ask  Mr.  McDonald  to  take  the  stand  again. 
Q,  Will  you  read  that  certificate,  [handing  a  paper  to  the  witness.j 
A.  It  is — 

Office  Secretary  Senate  United  St.\tes, 

Jl'ashington,  t'ebruary  '27.  1868. 

An  attested  copy  of  the  foregoing  resolution  was  delivered  by  me  into  the  hands  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  at  his  office  in  the  Executive  Mansion  about  ten  o'clock  p.  m. 
on  the  21st  of  February,  1868. 

w.  J.  McDonald, 

"  Chief  Clerk  Senate  Lniti.d  States. 

Q,  Do  you  make  the  same  statement  as  regards  this  service? 
A.  Yes  sir ;  the  same  statement  in  regard  to  that. 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  nothing  further  to  ask. 
Mr.  Stanbery.  Nothing  on  our  part. 

Mr.  Manager  WiLSON.  The  resolution  to  which  the  first  certificate  of  Mr. 
McDonald  refers  is  : 

In  Executive  Session,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

.January  V.\,  ]868. 
Resolved,  Tliat,  having  considered  the  evidence  and  reasons  given  by  the  President  in  his 
report  of  the  J-'th  ot  l>eccniber,   1867,  for  tiie  suspension  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War 
of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  the  Senate  do  not  concur  iu  sucli  suspension. 
Attested  : 

J.  W.  FORNEY,  Secretary. 

The  resolution  as  to  the  service  of  which  the  other  certificate  relates : 

In  Executive  Session,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

t'ebruary  'Z\,  1868. 

"Whereas  the  Senate  have  received  and  considered  the  communication  of  tlic  President 
B'atiiig  tliiit  111-  lias  removed  Edwin  M.  Sianton,  Stcrctary  of  War,  and  designated  the  Adju 
tant  General  of  the  army  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  :  Therefore, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  159 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  That,  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  the  President  has  no  power  to  remove  the  Secretary  of  War  and  designate 
any  other  officer  to  perform  the  duties  of  that  office  ad  interim. 

Attest : 

J.  W.  FORNEY,  Secretary. 

Mr.  Manager  Bitler.  We  now  call  J.  W.  Jones  as  a  witness. 
J.  W.  Jo.VES  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Bltler  : 

Q.  Plea.sc  state  your  name  and  position? 

A.  J.  W.  Jones,  keeper  of  the  stationery. 

Q.  An  oflieer  of  the  Senate  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  yon  know  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  of  the  United  States 
army,  Adjutant  General  Z 

A.  I  do,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  ynu  known  him? 

A.   1  have  known  him  about  six  or  seven  years. 

Q.  Were  you  employed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  to  serve  a  notice  of 
the  proceedings  of  tlie  Senate  upon  him  .' 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Looking  at  that  memorandum,  [handing  a  paper  to  the  witness,]  what  day 
did  you  attempt  to  mak(^  the  service  if 

A.  The  21st  of  February. 

Q.  What  year  ? 

A.  The  present  year. 

Q.  Where  did  you  tind  him? 

A.  I  found  him  at  Marini's  Hall,  at  a  masquerade  ball. 

Q.  Was  he  masked? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  it  was  him? 

A.  1  saw  his  shoulder-straps,  and  I  asked  him  to  unmask. 

Q    Did  he  so  do? 

A.  He  did,  sir. 

Q.  After  ascertaining  it  was  him,  what  did  you  do? 

A.  I  handed  him  the  resolulion  of  the  Senate. 

Q.  About  what  time  of  the  day  or  niglit  1 

A.  About  eleven  o'clock  at  night. 

Q.  Did  you  make  the  service  then  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  certified  the  fact  on  that  paper  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  certificate  true  ? 

A.  It  is. 

Q.  Will  you  read  it  ? 

A.  Attached  to  this  copy  of  the  resolution  is  my  certificate,  in  these  words  : 

An  attested  copy  of  the  foregoing  resolution  was  placed  in  my  hands  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Senate  to  be  delivered  to  Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  General  of 
the  United  Srates  army,  and  the  same  was  by  me  delivered  into  the  hands  of  General  Thomas 
about  the  hour  of  eleven  o'clock  p.  m.  on  the  21st  day  of  February. 

J.  W.  JONES. 

Q.  Is  tliat  certificate  true  ? 

A.  It  is,  sir. 

No  cross-examination. 


160  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  The  document  thus  served  is  as  follows : 

In  Execl'tivk  Session,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

February  '21,  ]f^68. 

Wlieroas  the  Senate  have  received  and  considered  the  communication  of  the  President, 
statinp  that  he  had  removed  Edwin  M.  Stanton.  Secretary  of  War,  and  designated  the  Adju- 
tant General  of  tiie  army  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  :  Therefore, 

n&sohed  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  That,  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  the  President  has  no  power  to  remove  the  Secretary  of  War  and  designate 
any  other  officer  to  perform  the  duties  of  that  office  ad  interim. 

Attest :  J.  W.  FORNEY,  Secretary. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  desire  to  call  C.  E.  Creecy,  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment. 

Charles  E.  Crf.ecy,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  "What  is  your  full  name,  and  what  is  yonr  official  position,  if  any  ? 

A.  Charles  Eaton  Creecy  ;  I  am  clerk  in  charge  of  the  appointments  in  the 
Treasury  Department. 

Q  "Will  you  look  at  the  bundle  of  papers  you  have  brou^-ht,  in  obedience  to 
our  subpoena,  and  give  nie  the  form  of  commission  which  was  used  in  the  Treas- 
ury Department  bi^fore  the  passage  of  the  act  of  Match  2,  1S67  ? 

A.  This  is  it ;   [producing  a  paper.] 

Q.  You  produce  this  as  such  form  i 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  do, 

Q.  Was  that  the  ordinarj'  form,  or  one  used  without  exception  1 

A.  It  was  the  ordinary  form  for  the  permanent  commis.sion. 

Mr.  Johnson  and  Mr.  Pattku.*>o.\,  of  Tennessee.  We  caimot  hear  one  word. 

Mr.  liowAUD.  1'lie  witness  must  speak  louder. 

Mr.  Jf)HNSON.  If  his  answer  were  repeated  by  the  counsel  it  would  be  better. 

Mr.  Manager  Bltler.  If  it  will  not  be  considered  improper,  Mr.  President, 
I  will  repeat  tlie  answer. 

The  Chikf  Ji'stice.  The  witness  will  speak  for  himself. 

]Mr.  EvARTs.  We  prefer  that  the  witness  should  speak  so  as  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  ]\Ianager  Bu'i'LKR.  I  have  no  desire  to  undertake  the  labor. 

The  Ciiit-F  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  Mr.  Creecy,  you  will  raise  your  voice 
and  spt-ak  as  loud  as  possible. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

]\Ir.  ]\Ianager  BuTi.ER,  (to  the  witness.)  What  is  your  answer,  then  ;  loud 
enough  to  be  heard  ? 

Mr.  Trumbull.  I  think  it  Would  help  us  all  to  hoar  if  the  witness  would 
stand  further  from  the  counsel.  li'  he  would  stand  on  the  other  side  of  the  Sec- 
retary's desk  he  would  have  to  speak  louder,  and  all  could  hear. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  That  would  be  better.  Mr.  Creecy,  you  will  go  to  the 
opposite  side  of  the  Secretary's  desk. 

The  witness  changed  bis  position  to  the  other  side  of  the  desk,  and  subse- 
quent witnesses  were  examined  standing  at  the  Secretary's  desk,  to  the  right  of 
the  presiding  officer. 

Mr.  Manager  Bi'iLER,  (to  the  witness.)  What  is  the  answer  to  the  question 
whether  this  is  the  ordinary  form  of  commission  used  before  March  2,  18671 

A.  That  is  the  onlinary  form. 

Q.  For  the  class  of  ajipointments  for  which  such  commissions  would  be  issued 
vras  there  any  otlier  form  used  befirt;  that  time? 

A.  1  think  that  is  tlu;  f<n-m  for  the  permanent  commission. 

Q.  Will  you  now  give  me  the  form  m  hich  has  been  used  since  in  the  Treas- 
ury Department  1 

[The  witness  produced  a  paper  and  handed  it  to  Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.J 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  161 

Mr.  Stanbkry.  Will  the  honorable  manager  allow  me  to  ask  what  is  the 
object  of  this  testimony  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  object  of  this  testimony  is  to  show  that  prior  to 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  2,  1867,  known  as  the  civil  tenure-of-office  bill, 
a  certain  form  of  commtssion  had  been  used  in  the  practice  of  the  government, 
and  issued  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  ;  that  after  the  passage  of  the 
civil  tenure-of  >  ffice  bill  a  new  form  was  made  conforming  to  the  provisions  of 
the  tenure-of-office  act,  showing  that  the  President  acted  in  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment under  the  teuure-of-office  act  as  an  actual  and  valid  law.  Is  there  any 
objection  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.    No,  sir, 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  I  return  the  first  paper  you  handed 
me.  I  see  there  ai'e  certain  interlineations  ;  did  you  speak  of  the  form  before  it 
was  interlined,  or  subsequently,  or  both  ? 

A.  This  is  the  commission.  The  alterations  in  this  commission  show  the 
changes  that  have  been  made  to  conform  to  the  tenure-of-office  bill. 

Q.  There  is  a  portion  of  that  paper  in  print  and  a  portion  in  writing.  Do  I 
understand  you  that  the  printed  portion  was  the  form  used  before  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  written  portion  shows  the  changes  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  read  with  a  loud  voice  so  as  to  be  heard  the  printed  portion  of 
the  commission,  the  original  commission,  the  whole  commission  1 

Mr.  CoNNEss.  I  think  if  the  reading  should  be  done  by  the  Clerk,  who  is  ia 
the  habit  of  reading,  it  would  be  very  much  better  for  the  whole  Senate. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  to  ichom  these  presents 

shall  come,  greeting  : 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  integrity,  diligence,  and  dis- 
cretion of ,  1  have  nominated,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 

Senate  do  appoint  him ,  and  do  a.nthorize  and  empower  him   to  execute  and 

fulfil  the  duties  of  that  office  according  to  law,  and  to  have  and  to  hold  the  said  office,  with 
all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  emoluments  thereunto  legally  appertaining,  unto  him  the  said 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time 'being. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent  and  the  seal  of  the 
Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand  at  the  city  of  Washington  the  —  day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  18 — ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the . 


Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
By  the  President : 


Q.  Please  state  what  was  the  alteration  made  of  that  printed  form  to  conform 
to  the  provisions  of  the  tenure-of-office  act  ? 

A.  The  words  "  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for 
the  time  being" 

Mr.  Johnson.  We  cannot  hear.     The  Clerk  had  better  read  those  words. 

The  Secretary.  The  words  written  are  a,s  follows  :  "  Until  a  successoj-  shall 
have  been  a[)pointed  and  duly  qualified." 

Mr.  Johnson.   What  are  the  words  stricken  out? 

The  Secretary.  The  words  stricken  out  are  "during  the  pleasure  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being." 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  Since  that  act  has  any  other  form  of  commission  been  used  than  the  one 
as  altered  for  such  permanent  appointments  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

1]  I  P 


162  IMPEACHMENT    0?    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  Have  yoa  now  a  form  of  official  bond  for  officers  as  used  prior  to  the  civil 
tenure-of-office  act  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   [producing  a  paper.] 

Q.  Has  any  change  been  made  in  that  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Please  give  me,  if  you  have  it,  a  copy  of  the  commission  issued  for  tem- 
porary appointments  since  the  tenure-of-office  act  ] 

Mr.  Stanbkry.  Is  the  bond  put  in  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  is. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Will  you  have  it  read? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  unless  you  desire  it.  It  is  the  common,  ordinary 
form  of  bond. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Let  me  see  it. 

The  paper  was  handed  to  Mr.  Stanbery,  and  read  by  him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  State  whether  the  printed  part  of 
this  paper  was  the  part  in  use  prior  to  the  tenure-of-office  act  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Mr.  Curtis.  "What  is  the  paper  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  paper  is  the  form  of  commission  for  temporary- 
appointments.     Will  the  Secretary  read  it  ? 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 
The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  to  ichom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting : 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  integrity,  diligence,  and  discre- 
tion of ,  I  do  appoint  him,  and  do  authorize  and  empower  bim  to  execute  and  fulfil 

the  duties  of  that  ofSce  according  to  law,  and  to  have  and  to  hold  the  said  office  with  all  the 

rights,  privileges  and  emoluments  thereunto  legally  appertaining,  unto  him  the  said 

,  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being,  until  the 

end  of  the  next  session  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  no  longer. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent,  and  the  seal  of  the 
Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  —  day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  18 — ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the . 

» 
Secretary  of  tlit  Treasury. 

By  the  President  : 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Was  any  cliange  made  in  that  commission  ? 

A.  The  alteration  shows  the  chang'e. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Head  the  alteration,  Mr.  Sc^crctary. 

The  Secretary.  Strike  out  "during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  for  the  time  being,"  and  iii.«crt  "unless  this  commission  be  sooner 
revoked  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being." 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  before  these  changes  were  made  the  official  opinion 
of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  was  taken  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q,  Have  you  that  opinion  ? 

A.  1  have. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  withdraw  the  question  as  to  the  opinion,  on  consul- 
tation. [To  the  witness.]  Do  you  know  whether  since  the  alteration  of  these 
forms  any  commissions  have  been  issued  eigned  by  the  Prebideut  of  the  United 
States  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  As  altered  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  163 

Q.  It  is  suggested  to  me  to  ask  you  if  the  President  bad  signed  both  forms, 
both  the  temporary  and  permanent  forms  as  altered  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  look  at  the  paper  -which  I  semi  you,  [handing  a  paper,]  and  say  what 
is  that  paper. 

A.  It  is  a  commission  issued  to  Mr.  Cooper  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury. 

Q.  Under  what  date  1 

A.  T^lie  20th  day  of  November,  1867. 

Q.  Who  was  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  the  time  of  the  issuing 
of  that  commission  ? 

A.  Mr.  W.  E.  Chandler  was  one. 

Q.  Do  you  happen  to  remember,  as  a  matter  of  memory,  whether  the  Senate 
was  then  in  session  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  not, 

Q.  State  whether  Mr.  Cooper  qualified  and  went  into  office  under  that  first 
commission. 

A.  He  did  not  qualify  under  the  first  commission  at  all. 

Q.  What  is  the  paper  I  now  send  you  ?  [Handing  a  paper.] 

A.  It  is  authority  from  the  President  to  Edmund  Cooper  to  act  as  Assistant 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Q.  Read  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Is  the  other  considered  as  read,  the  one  under  which  he  did  not 
qualify  I 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  Yes,  sir  ;  I  meant  so  to  consider  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  How  are  we  ever  to  know  the  contents  if  they  are  not  read 
when  produced  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  is  exactly  the  same  form  as  the  other  that  has  been 
read. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Then  let  it  be  so  stated.     We  know  nothing  whatever  aboutit. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  hand  that  first  paper  to  the  counsel.  [The  paper 
was  handed  to  the  counsel  for  the  President,  examined  by  them,  and  returned.] 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  desire  to  have  the 
paper  read  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery,  Certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well.     Let  the  Secretary  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Andrew  Johnson,    President  of  the    United  States  of  America,  to  all  who  shall  sec  these 

presents,  greeting : 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  integrity  and  ability  of  Edmund 
Cooper,  I  do  appoint  him  to  be  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  do  authorize  and 
empower  him  to  execute  and  fulfil  the  duties  of  that  ofSce  according  to  law,  and  to  have 
and  to  hold  the  said  office,  with  all  the  powers,  privileges,  and  emoluments  thereunto  of  right 
appertaining  unto  him,  the  said  Edmund  Cooper,  until  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  no  longer,  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the  20th  day  of  November,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  1867,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the  ninety- 
second. 

[L.  s.]  ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

By  the  President : 

WiLLl.\M  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  Stale. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Now,  will  you  pass  to  the  Secretary 
the  letter  of  authority  of  which  you  have  spoken,  and  let  it  be  read  1 


164  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

EXECUTIVK  DKPARTMEXT, 

Washington,  December  2,  18(?7. 
Whereas  a  vacancy  has  occurred  in  the  office  of  Assistant  Secrctarj'  of  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States,  in  pursuance  of  the  authority  rested  in  mc  by  the  first  section  of  the  act  of 
Cono^ress  approved  February  13.  1795,  entitled  "An  act  to  amend  the  act  entitled  'An  act 
making  alterations  in  the  Treasury  and' "War  Departments,'"  Edmund  Cooper  is  liereby 
authorized  to  perform  the  duties  of  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  until  a  successor  be 
appointed  or  such  vacancy  be  filled. 

ANDEEW  JOH^^SON. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  How  did  Mr.  Chandler  get  out  of  office  ? 

A.  He  resigned. 

Q.  Have  you  a  copy  of  his  resignation  1 

A.  I  have  not  with  me. 

Q.  Can  you  state  from  memory  (if  it  is  not  objected  to)  at  what  time  his 
resignation  took  effect 't 

A.  I  cannot.  I  tliink  it  was  a  day  or  two  before  this  appointment  or  this 
authority  was  given  to  Mr.  Cooper. 

Q.  Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  produce  a  copy  of  his  resignation  after 
you  leave  the  stand  ? 

A.  I  will  try  to  do  so. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Curti.s  : 

Q.  Can  you  fix  the  date  when  the  change  in  the  form  of  permanent  appoint- 
ments of  which  you  have  spoken  first  occurred  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  four  days  after  the  passage  of  the  tenure-of-oflice  act. 

Q.  With  what  confidence  do  you  speak  ?  Do  you  speak  from  any  recol- 
lection 1 

A.  We  obtained  an  opinion  from  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  on  the  sub- 
ject.    It  was  given  on  the  6th,  and  from  that  day  we  followed  his  opinion. 

Q.  Then  you  would  fix  the  date  as  the  6th  of  what  month  ] 

A.  The  6th  of  March,  1S67, 

Hon.  Burt  Van  Horn  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  you  were  present  at  the  War  Department  when 
Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  General  of  the  United  States,  was 
there  to  make  demand  for  the  office,  property,  books,  and  records  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  WHien  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  on  Saturday,  the  22d  of  February,  1868,  I  believe. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  day  ? 

A.  Perhaps  a  few  minutes  after  11  o'clock. 

Q.   Who  were  present  ? 

A.  General  Charles  H.  Van  Wyck,  of  New  York ;  General  G.  M.  Dodge,  of 
Iowa ;  Hon.  Freeman  Clarke,  of  New  York ;  Hon.  J.  K.  Moorhead,  of  Penn- 
sylvania; Hon.  Columbus  Delano,  of  Ohio;  Hon.  W.  D.  Kelloy,  of  Pennsyl- 
vania ;  Hon.  Thomu.s  W.  Ferry,  of  ]\Iichigan,  and  myself.  The  Secretary  of 
W^ar,  Mr.  Stanton,  and  his  son  were  also  present. 

Q.  l-*leaHe  state  what  took  jtlacc;. 

A.  The  gentlemen  montioMcd  and  myself  were  in  the  office  the  Secretaiy  of 
War  usually  occupies,  holding  conversation  ;  General  Thomas  came  in;  I  saw 
him  coming  from  the  President's  ;  he  came  into  the  building  and  came  up  stairs, 
and  came  into  the  Secretary's  room  first;  he  said,  "Good  morning,  Mr.  Secre- 
tary, and  good  morning,  gentlemen;"  the  Secretary  replied,  "Good  morning," 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  165 

and  I  believe  we  all  did ;  then  began  this  conversation  as  follows :  [Referring 
to  a  printed  document.]  "  I  am  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  am  ordered  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  to  take  charge  of  the  office;"  Mr.  Stanton 
then  replied,  "I  order  you  to  repair  to  your  room  and  exercise yonr  functions  as 
Adjutant- General  of  the  army  ;"  ]\[r.  Thomas  replied  to  this,  "  I  am  Secretary 
of  War  ad  interim,  and  I  shall  not  obey^  your  orders ;  but  I  shall  obey  the 
orders  of  the  President,  who  has  ordered  me  to  take  charge  of  the  War  Oliice;" 
Mr.  Stanton  replied  to  this  as  follows :  "As  Secretary  of  War,  I  order  you  to 
repair  to  your  place  as  Adjutant  General;"  Mr.  Thomas  replied,  "I  shall  not  do 
so;"  Mr.  Stanton  then  said  in  reply,  "Then  you  may  stand  there,  if  you  please," 
pointing  to  Mr.  Thomas,  "but  you  cannot  act  as  Secretary  of  War;  if  you  do, 
you  do  so  at  your  peril;"  Mr.  Thomas  replied  to  this,  "I  shall  act  as  Secretary 
of  War."     This  was  the  conversation,  I  may  say,  in  the  Secretary's  room. 

Q.  What  happened  then  ? 

A.  After  that  they  went  to  the  room  of  General  Schriver,  which  is  just  across 
the  hall,  opposite  the  Secretary's  room. 

Q.  Who  went  first  ? 

A.  I  think,  if  I  remember  aright,  that  General  Thomas  went  first,  and  was 
holding  some  conversation  with  General  Schriver,  which  I  did  not  hear.  He 
was  followed  by  Mr.  Stanton,  by  General  Moorhead,  by  General  Ferry,  and 
then  by  myself.  Some  little  conversation  was  had  there,  which  I  did  not  hear, 
but  after  I  got  into  the  room,  which  was  but  a  moment  after  they  went  in,  how- 
ever, Mr.  Stanton  addressed  Mr.  Thomas  as  follows,  which  I  concluded  was  the 
summing  up  of  the  conversation  had  before 

Mr.  Curtis.  No  matter  about  that. 

The  Witness.  Mr.  Stanton  then  said:  "Then  you  claim  to  be  here  as  Sec- 
retary of  Wai",  and  refuse  to  obey  my  orders'?"  Mr.  Thomas  said  :  "  I  do,  sir; 
I  shall  require  the  mails  of  the  War  Department  to  be  delivered  .to  me,  and 
shall  transact  all  the  bu.siness  of  the  War  Department."  That  is  the  substance 
of  the  conversation  which  I  heard,  and,  in  fact,  the  conversation  as  I  heard  it 
entirely. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  of  it  afterward  ? 

A.  I  made  it  at  the  time.  I  had  my  memorandum  in  my  hand.  When  the 
conversation  began  I  had  paper  and  pencil  and  wrote  it  down  as  the  conversa- 
tion occurred,  and  after  the  conversation  ended  I  drew  it  up  from  my  pencil 
sketches,  in  writing,  immediately,  in  the  office,  in  the  presence  of  the  gentle- 
men who  heard  it. 

Q.  What  was  done  after  that  ?     Where  did  Thomas  go  1 

A.  It  was  then  after  eleven  o'clock,  and  my  duties  and  the  duties  of  the  rest 
of  us  called  us  here  to  the  House,  and  I  left  General  Thomas  in  the  room  of 
General  Schriver. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  what  was  yoiir  business  in  the  War  Department  on 
that  morning  '\ 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  went  there  that  morning,  I  suppose,  as  other  gentlemen  did ; 
at  least  I  went  there  for  the  purpose  of  visiting  the  Secretary.  I  had  no 
special  public  business. 

Q.  Was  there  no  object  in  the  visit,  except  merely  to  see  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  iiadan  object.  The  times  were  rather  exciting  at  that  moment, 
and  I  went,  as  much  as  anything  else,  to  talk  with  the  Secretary,  to  confer  with 
him  about  public  affairs. 

Q.  Public  affairs  generally  ? 

A.  No,  not  public  business  particularly. 

Q.  What  public  affairs  were  the  object  of  the  conference  ? 


166  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  Well,  sir,  the  matter  of  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton.  I  felt  an  interest  in 
that  matter,  and  of  course  was  talking  with  him  upon  that  subject. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  these  other  gentlemen  whom  you  found  there,  or  did  you 
go  there  alone  ? 

A.  I  think  I  did  go  in  company  with  one  or  two  of  them. 

Q.  With  whom  did  you  go  in  company  ? 

A.  I  think  I  went  with  Mr.  Clarke,  of  Xew  York,  and  G-eneral  Van  Wyck. 
I  am  not  certain  that  any  others  were  with  me. 

Q.  When  you  arrived  at  his  room  what  was  the  hour  ? 

A.  It  was  a  little  before  eleven  o'clock. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  find  there  when  you  arrived — these  other  gentlemen 
whom  you  have  mentioned? 

A.  Not  all  of  them. 

Q.  Who  wei*e  there  when  you  arrived  1 

A.  I  think  General  Moorhead  was  there  for  one ;  I  think  Mr.  Ferry  was  there ; 
I  think  Mr.  Delano  was  there.     Two  or  three  others  came  in  after  I  got  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  their  business  was  in  the  office  that  morning  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  state  any  business  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  they  stated  no  business  to  me. 

Q,  All  being  there,  the  next  thing  was  that  General  Thomas  came  into  the 
room  ? 

A.  After  we  had  been  there  some  moments. 

Q.  You  say  that  when  that  conversation  began  between  General  Thomas  and 
the  Secretary  you  were  ready  to  take  notes? 

A.  I  appeared  to  be  ready.  I  had  a  large  white  envelope  in  my  pocket,  and 
I  bad  a  pencil  also  in  my  pocket ;  and  when  the  conversation  began  it  seemed 
to  me  that  it  might  be  well  to  note  what  was  said. 

Q.  Are  you  m  the  habit,  generally,  in  conversations  of  that  kind,  of  making 
memoranda  of  what  is  said  '( 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  am,  unless  I  deem  it  important  to  do  so. 

Q.  Did  any  one  request  you  to  take  memoranda  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  on  your  own  inotion  ? 

A.  On  my  own  responsibility,  supposing  I  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  so. 

Q.  Undoubtedly.  After  the  conversation  was  ended  in  the  room  with  the 
Secretary,  General  Thomas,  as  I  understand  you,  went  out  first? 

A.  I  think  he  did  ;  he  went  across  the  hall. 

Q.  Who  went  with  the  Secretary  from  his  room  across  the  hall  to  where 
General  Thomas  had  gone  ? 

A.  I  am  not  aware  that  any  one  went  directly  with  him,  but  immediately 
after  him,  if  not  with  him,  General  Moorhead  and  Mr.  Ferry. 

Q.  How  long  after  General  Thomas  had  left  the  office  was  it  that  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  followed  him  ? 

A.  But  a  moment  or  two  ;  perhaps  two  minutes. 

Q.  Did  he  state,  when  he  left,  Avhat  was  his  object  1 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  the  Secretary  stated  anything.  General  Thomas  was 
in  the  room  talking. 

Q.   Did  he  re([uest  any  gentleman  to  go  along  with  him  ? 

A.  Not  that  1  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Did  you  go  upon  your  own  motion  or  by  agreement  ? 

A.  I  went  upon  my  own  motion. 

Q.  All  that  were  there  did  not  go  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  they  all  went  in.  I  think  they  did  not  all  go  in  at  that 
time.     The  two  gentlemen  named,  I  know,  went  in  before  me. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  Secretary  went  did  you  go  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  167 

A.  Perhaps  it  was  a  minute ;  it  was  very  soon.  I  followed  the  other  two 
gentlemen  very  soon. 

Q.  What  had  taken  place  between  the  Secretary  and  General  Thomas  before 
you  arrived  in  the  room,  or  had  anything  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  ;  they  had  some  conversation  ;  I  cannot  say  what  was  said. 

Q.  As  you  have  given  the  conversation  in  your  notes,  it  would  seem  as  if  it 
then  began  after  you  first  got  in  1 

A.  The  conversation  I  have  given  began  after  I  got  in.  As  I  said  before,  I 
beard  some  talking,  but  I  do  not  know  what  was  said. 

Q.  You  mean  yon  heard  some  talking  belore  you  got  in  there  ? 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Whose  voices  ? 

A,  I  heard  General  Thomas's  voice  and  Mr.  Stanton's  voice.  They  had 
some  conversation. 

Q.  But  what  that  was  you  do  not  know  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Then  the  conversatioli  followed  which  you  have  detailed  1 

A.  Certainly.  The  first  I  heard  when  I  went  in  was  the  question  of  Mr. 
Stanton,  which  I  have  staled,  and  the  answer  of  General  Thomas. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  your  notes  with  you  and  take  your  notes  into  that  room  ? 

A.  I  had  my  envelope  in  my  hand  when  I  went  in. 

Q.  And  your  pencil  ? 

A.  And  ray  pencil. 

Q.  Where  is  that  envelope  which  you  had  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say.  I  presume  it  was  destroyed.  The  envelope  was  a  large, 
long,  white  envelope  that  I  put  in  my  pocket  with  letters.  It  was  the  only  con- 
venient thing  I  had  at  the  time.  I  wrote  on  both  sides  of  it,  and  then  drew  it 
off  immediately  on  the  Secretary's  table. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  that  original  memorandum — the  envelope  ? 

A.  I  presume  it  is  torn  up  and  destroyed;  I  do  not  know  anything  to  the 
contrary. 

Q.  When  did  you  destroy  it  ? 

A.  That  I  cannot  say ;  perhaps  very  soon  after  the  conversation  took  place. 

Q.  Why  did  you  destroy  itl 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  it  is  destroyed  ;  but  I  have  no  knowledge  of  it  now.  I 
cannot  sq,y  that  it  is  destroyed ;  perhaps  it  may  be.  I  had  no  occasion  to  keep 
it.  I  supposed  there  was  no  occasion  to  keep  it,  because  I  had  written  the  thing 
off,  or,  rather,  a  yonng  man  wrote  it  off  at  the  table  as  I  read  it,  and  that  is  the 
same  thing,  I  suppose,  and  I  compared  what  he  wrote  after  it  was  written  with 
the  notes,  because  I  wanted  to  be  particular  in  regard  to  it. 

Q.  Is  the  document  from  which  you  have  read  here  to-day  a  manuscript  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  is  my  testimony  before  the  committee,  which  is  an  exact  copy 
of  the  notes  I  took. 

Q.  And  those  notes  were  written  by  some  young  man  who  was  present  1 

A.  At  my  suggestion  he  took  the  pen,  and  1  read  to  him,  and  then  compared 
it  word  for  word. 

Q.  Where  are  those  notes? 

A.  I  do  not  know  where  they  can  be  found.  I  did  not  suppose  it  important 
to  keep  the  notes,  because  I  had  a  copy  of  the  notes  before  the  committee  and 
testified  to  it  exactly. 

Q.  A  copy  of  what  notes  do  you  mean  ] 

A.  I  had  the  notes  I  took  there. 

Q.  You  mean  the  notes  written  by  that  young  man? 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  had  them  there. 

Q.  What  is  his  name?     Who  M'as  he? 

A.  One  of  the  clerks  there.     I  do  not  recollect  what  the  young  man's  name 


168  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

was.  I  Jo  not  know  that  I  ever  knew  his  name.  I  did  not  ask  bis  name.  I 
would  know  him  if  I  saw  him. 

Q.  You  preserved  those  notes  until  you  testified  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  after  you  testified  did  you  preserve  them? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  kept  them  any  length  of  time  after  that.  I  thought  it 
was  of  no  consequence. 

Q.  How  you  disposed  of  the  envelope,  or  how  you  disposed  of  those  notes, 
you  have  no  recollection  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  cannot  say  what  became  of  the  envelope ;  it  may  be  in  my  papers 
somewhere. 

Q.  Have  you  made  any  search  for  them? 

A.  No,  sir;  my  attention  has  not  been  called  to  that  before, 

Q.  When  you  came  back  into  the  Secretary's  room,  who  suggested  to  you,  or 
did  you  suggest  the  matter  yourself,  that  the  notes  should  be  written  out  ?  How 
did  that  come  to  be  ? 

A.  It  was  upon  my  own  motion. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  for  a  clerk? 

A.  I  had  taken  notes  and  proposed  in  the  presence  of  the  gentlemen  who 
heard  the  conversation  that  they  should  see  that  I  had  them  correct ;  and  that 
was  consented  to  by  General  Moorhead,  Mr.  Kelley,  and  others  who  were 
present. 

Q.  Then  you  proposed  to  have  them  copied? 

A.  I  proposed  to  havethem  drawn  off".  A  young  man  was  there  ready  to  do 
it  or  willing  to  do  it,  and  I  asked  him  to  write  it  out  as  I  would  read  it  to  him 
from  my  notes. 

Q.  Now,  did  anything  else  take  place  in  General  Schriver's  room  besides  this 
talk  that  you  have  testified  to  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of;  only,  as  I  have  said,  I  heard  some  voices  in 
there  ;  but  what  was  said  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  After  you  went  in,  while  you  were  there  ? 

A.  1  think  there  was  no  conversation. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  siuiply  for  conversation,  but  what  else  took  place  ? 

A.  Nothing  took  place  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Who  first  left  the  room  ? 

A.  After  this  conversation  ?  .      • 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  I  cannot  say  wliether  I  left  it  first  or  General  Moorhead  or  Mr.  Ferry. 
We  were  all  there.     T  think  we  went  out  in  a  moment  afterward. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  Mr.   Stanton  there  ? 

A.  Mr,  Stanton  was  there  when  I  went  out. 

Q.  Did  you  go  into  his  room  from  there  ? 

A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  'J'homas  there  also  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  ^[r.  Stanton  remain  in  Schriver's  room  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say,  because  as  soon  as  I  had  tiiis  copied  I  left  for  the  House. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  he  did  not  come  iu  while  you  were  engaged  in 
having  the  copy  taken  ? 

A.  At  the  moment  of  making  the  copy  ?  I  will  not  say  that  he  camein  while 
the  copy  was  being  taken  or  not.  There  was  a  short  time  consumed  in  taking 
it.     He  might  have  done  so,  but  I  will  not  say. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  saw  him  at  all  in  his  office  after  you  had 
left  Schriver's  room  ? 

A.  I  cannot  swear  positively  that  I  did.  I  saw  him  after  I  left  the  room. 
TJie  doors  were  open.     There  are  but  a  few  feet  from  one  room  to  the  other.    I 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  169 

saw  him  sitting  in  General  Scliriver's  room.     I  will  not  swear  positively  that  I 
saw  him  in  his  own  office  after  I  left  that  room. 

Q.  What  took  place  between  them  afterward  you  do  not  know  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  do  not  know,  because  1  left. 

Q.  Was  there  any  friendly  greeting  or  other  circumstance  took  place  at  that 
time  between  the  Secretary  and  General  Thomas  while  you  were  in  Schriver's 
room  1 

A.  Well,  sir,  if  there  was,  I  did  not  see  it.  I  do  not  know  that  there  was 
while  I  was  in.     What  happened  before  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Was  the  memorandum  that  you  made  on  that  envelope  complete  or  abbre- 
viated ? 

A.  The  questions  and  answei-s  as  I  have  them  were  complete 

Q.  Was  the  copy,  then,  an  exact  transcript  of  the  memorandum? 

A.  It  was  merely  questions  and  answers.  The  questions  were  short  and  the 
answers  were  short. 

Q.  Did  it  exhibit  the  whole  conversation  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say.  I  will  not  say  that  it  did  every  word.  I  think  it  did  not. 
I  recollect  one  expression,  for  instance,  that  General  Thomas  made  that  I  did 
not  put  down.  I  did  not  think  it  material.  I  can  state  it  if  the  court  desire  it. 
It  occurs  to  me  now.  It  is  one  expression  that  was  used.  I  can  state  it  if  the 
gentleman  wishes. 

Q.  All  I  want  to  know  is,  whether  it  completely  covered  the  conversation  ] 

A.  It  covered  all  the  conversation  of  any  importance. 

Q.  That  you  thought  important? 

A.  At  least  what  I  wrote.  I  wrote  down  just  as  the  questions  were  given 
and  answered.  I  took  all  the  conversation  in  substance,  and  all  of  any  account 
as  it  was  had,  as  the  questions  and  answers  were  given. 

Q.  This  conversation  that  you  took  down  in  that  way,  did  you  take  it  down 
in  short  hand  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  did  not.  •    • 

Q.  You  wrote  it  out? 

A.  I  wrote  it  out. 

Q.  Without  abbreviation  ? 

A.  Without  abbreviation. 

Q.  Were  there  pauses  in  their  conversation  ?  Did  they  pause  to  allow  you 
to  follow  them  1 

A.  The  conversation,  as  I  said  before,  was  very  slow  and  deliberate.  There 
was  sufficient  time  for  me  to  write  these  questions  and  answers,  as  they  were 
short,  as  counsel  can  see.     General  Thomas  said  but  very  little. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  if,  in  that  conversation,  Mr.  Stantun  asked  him  if  he 
wished  him  to  vacate  immediately,  or  would  give  him  time  to  arrange  his  private 
papers  ? 

A.  Mr.  Stanton? 

Q.  Yes,  sir ;  did  Mr.  Stanton  ask  Mr.  Thomas  whether  he  wished  him  to 
vacate  immediately,  or  whether  he  would  accord  him  (Stanton)  time  to  arrange 
his  private  papers  1 

A.  There  was  nothing  said  in  that  conversation  in  reference  to  that.  There 
were  other  conversations,  I  understand,  at  other  times,  at  which  such  remarks 
were  made,  as  I  saw  in  the  papers,  but  there  was  nothing  of  that  kind  said  at 
that  time  in  that  conversation.  The  question  of  giving  time  and  changing  papers 
did  not  come  up  in  that  conversation  at  all. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler: 
Q.  You  said,  if  I  understood  you,  that  there  was  a  single  remark  of  Thomas 
that  you  did  not  write  down,  that  now  occurred  to  you,  in  answer  to  the  coun- 
sel for  the  President ;  what  was  that  remark  ? 


170  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  said  that  in  answer  to  his  question  whether  I  had  sworn  to  all  that  he 
did  say.  I  recollect  now  General  Thomas  saying  he  did  not  wish  any  "  owpleas- 
antness."     I  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  put  that  in  my  record. 

Q.  Did  he  emphasize  it  in  that  "owpleasantness?" 

A.  The  gentlemen  heard  it,  and  it  was  spoken  of  afterward,  but  I  did  not 
think  it  was  anything  pertaining  to  this  question  ;  and  perhaps  some  other  little 
words  M-ere  said  now  and  then  that  did  not  amount  to  any  thin"-. 

Q.  I  must  still  ask  you  to  give  to  the  Senate  with  a  little  more  distinctness 
•whether  it  was  the  remark,  saying,  "  I  do  not  want  any  unpleasantness  between 
us,"  or  was  it  the  use  of  what  has  almost  become  a  technical  term,  that  "  there 
shall  not  be  any  <?«pleasautnes3?" 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  can  only  state  what  General  Thomas  said. 

Q.  The  emphasis  is  something. 

A.  "  Owpleasantness  "  was  the  expression  used. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  This  evidence  is  as  to  a  word ;  I  do  not  know  its  materiality  ;  but  did  he 
speak  the  word  in  the  ordinary  way  ? 

A.  He  spoke  it  in  the  way  I  have  mentioned. 

Q.  Now  give  his  expression  ? 

A.  He  said  as  he  came  in,  in  connection  with  what  I  have  said — I  did  not 
consider  it  material,  and  did  not  put  it  down — that  he  did  not  wish  any  "  on- 
pleasantness.'' 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  conversation  did  that  come  in? 

A.  Somewhere  in  the  first  part  of  the  conversation;  it  was  in  the  first  part. 

Q.  Was  it  in  the  first  part  or  after  Stanton  had  ordered  him  to  go  to  his 
room? 

A.  I  think  it  was  before  that — in  the  fore  part  of  his  conversation. 

Q.  At  the  very  beginning? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  near  the  beginning. 

Q.  Had  you  taken  down  anything  before  that  was  said  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  first  thing  he  said  was,  "  Good  morning,  Mr.  Secretary," 
and  "  Good  morning,  gentlemen." 

Q.  Did  you  take  that  down? 

A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  You  thought  that  was  material? 

A.  I  took  it  down.    . 

Q.  Then  next,  after  that,  did  he  say  he  did  not  wish  any  tinpleasantness  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  the  next  words  he  said  after  that  were  those.  It  was 
in  the  fore  part  of  the  conversation. 

Q.  But  that  you  thought  immaterial  ? 

A.  I  did  not  put  it  down  ;  I  thouglit  perhaps  it  was  immaterial.  It  occurs 
to  me  now,  as  I  know  it  excited  something;-  of  a  smile  at  the  time  he  spoke  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Bi.ngham.  As  I  understand  it,  the  counsel  are  desiiing  to 
know  of  the  witness  what  he  thought  of  the  importance  that  ought  to  be 
attached  to  the  word.  I  suppose  it  is  not  for  the  witness  to  swear  what  he 
thought  about  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  are  cross-examining  as  to  the  completeness  or  perfection 
of  the  witness's  memorandum.  It  certainly  is  material  to  know  why  he  omitted 
some  parts  and  inserted  others. 

Mr.  Manager  BiNtiHAM.     We  will  not  press  the  objection. 

Mr.  Sta\hI';rv\     We  have  nothing  further  to  ask  of  this  witness. 

Hon.  James  K.  Mooriiead  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butlrr  : 
Q.  I  believe  you  are  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PKESIDENT.  171 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  "We  have  learned  from  the  testimony  of  the  last  witues3  that  you  were 
present  at  Mr.  Secretary  Stanton's  office  when  General  Thomas  came  in  there 
to  make  some  demand ;  will  you  state  now  in  your  own  way,  as  well  as  you 
can,  what  took  place  there,  assisting  your  memory,  if  you  have  any  memo- 
randum, as  you  please  ? 

A.  I  will,  sir,  I  was  present  at  the  War  Department  on  Saturday  morning, 
the  22d  of  February,  I  believe,  and  I  imderstood  that  General  Thomas  was 
to  be  there  to  take  possession  of  the  department  that  morning-.  I  went  from 
my  boarding-house,  which  is  Mrs.  Garter's  on  the  hill  ;  1  went  to  the  War 
Department  in  company  with  Dr.  Burleigh,  who  boarded  there,  a  friend  of  Mr. 
Johnson's,  who  told  me  he  had  a  conversation  with  General  Thomas  the  night 
before 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  is  not  material. 

The  Witness.  I  was  giving  the  reason  why  I  went  there.  I  was  there,  and 
General  Thomas  came  in.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Van  Horn  is  correct  as  to 
what  passed.  I  did  not  take  any  memorandum  of  the  early  part  of  the  conver- 
sation; but  I  would  corroborate  his  statement 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  we  object  to.  , 

Mr.  Stanberv.  That  will  not  do. 

The  AVitness,  (continuing.)  Until  the  point  at  which  he  said  General  Thomas 
went  across  to  General  Schriver's  room.  He  did  go  there ;  he  was  followed  by 
Mr.  Stanton,  and  Mr.  Stanton  asked  me  to  go  over  there.  After  they  got  there 
Mr.  Stanton  put  a  direct  question  to  General  Thomas,  and  asked  me  to  remember 
it.  He  said,  "  General  Moorhead,  I  want  you  to  take  notice  of  this  and  of  the 
answer;"  and  that  induced  me  to  make  a  memorandum  of  it,  which  I  think  I 
have  among  my  papers  now.  [The  witness  proceeded  to  search  his  papers.]  It 
is  very  brief,  and  was  made  roughly,  but  so  I  thought  I  could  understand  and 
know  what  it  meant  myself,  and  I  can  explain  it  to  any  person  [Reading] 
Mr.  Stanton  said,  "  General  Thomas,  you  claim  to  be  here  as  Secretary  of  War, 
and  refuse  to  obey  my  orders?"  General  Thomas  replied,  "I  do,  sir."  After 
that  had  passed  1  walked  to  the  door  leading  into  the  hall  and  I  was  called  back, 
or  from  what  I  heard  my  attention  was  attracted  so  that  I  returned.  Mr.  Stan- 
ton then  said,  "  General  Thomas  requires  the  mails  of  the  department  to  be 
delivered  to  him."  General  Thomas  said  :  "I  require  the  mails  of  the  depart- 
ment to  be  delivered  to  me,  and  I  will  transact  the  business  of  the  office."  I 
had  not  heard  General  Thomas  say  this  entirely  and  clearly,  but  Mr,  Stanton 
repeated  it  in  this  way,  and  said  :  "General  Thomas  says,  '  1  require  the  mails 
of  the  department  to  be  delivered  to  me,  and  I  will  transact  the  business  of  the 
office.' "  I  asked  General  Thomas  if  he  had  made  use  of  those  words.  I  asked 
him  if  he  had  stated  this,  and  he  assented,  and  added:  "You  may  make  it  as 
full  as  you  please." 

That  is  all  the  memorandum  I  made,  and  I  made  that  at  the  time  and  place. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Stanbrry: 

Q.  When  you  arrived  at  Mr.  Stanton's  office  whom  did  you  find  there? 

A.  I  did  not  make  a  memorandum  of  that,  and  I  cannot  tell  exactly.  There 
were  a  number  of  members  of  Congress  there.  When  Mr.  Van  Horn  was 
reciting  the  names,  I  recognized  them  as  having  been  there,  and  I  remember 
Judge  Kelley  in  addition  to  the  names  mentioned. 

[Mr.  Van  Horn,  sitting  in  the  chamber,  said,  "  I  mentioned  him."] 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  at  the  office  before  General  Thomas  came  in  ? 

A.  I  think  about  half  an  hour. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  coming  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  saw  him  coming.  The  windows  opened  out  toward  the  White 
House,  and  it  was  announced  by  some  person  near  the  window  that  General 


172  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Thomas  was  coming  ;  and  I,  with  some  otlicr?,  got  up  and  looked  out  of  the 
window  and  saw  him  coming  along  the  walk,  and  we  expected  somewhat  of  a 
scene  then. 

Q.  When  he  came  in,  did  he  come  in  attended,  or  was  he  alone  ? 

A.  He  was  alone. 

Q.  Was  he  armed  in  any  way  ? 

A.  I  did  not  notice  any  arms. 

Q.  Side  arms  or  other? 

A.  I  did  not  notice  anything  except  what  the  Almighty  had  given  him. 

Q.  Now,  state  just  what  took  place  and  what  was  said  after  he  came  in, 
according  to  your  own  recollection. 

A.  I  think  I  have  stated  it  about  as  well  as  I  can.  When  he  came  in  he 
passed  the  compliments,  "  Good  morning,  Mr.  Secretary  ;"  and  "  Good  morning, 
gentlemen ;"  and  I  think  Mr.  Stanton  asked  him  if  he  had  any  business  with 
him. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Stanton  return  liis  salute  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   I  think  so. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Stanton  sitting  or  standing  1 

A.  During  the  time  I  was  there  he  was  doing  both ;  I  cannot  tell  exactly 
what  he  was  doing  at  the  time  General  Thomas  spoke  to  him,  but  he  was  down 
and  up  and  walking  around — sometimes  sitting,  sometimes  standing. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  the  general  to  take  a  seat  ? 

A.  I  think  not,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  take  a  seat  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not ;  he  did  not  in  that  room.  I  think  he  took  a  seat 
when  he  went  into  General  Schriver's  room. 

Q.  But  he  neither  took  a  seat  nor,  as  you  recollect, was  asked  to  take  a  seat? 

A.  Not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.   After  these  "good  mornings"  passed,  what  was  the  next  thing? 

A.  General  Thomas  said  that  he  was  there  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  ; 
he  was  appointed  by  the  President,  and  came  to  take  possession: 

Q.  Was  there  nothing  said  before  that  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  recollection.  1  took  no  memorandum  of  anything  before  that, 
and  before  what  I  have  stated  already. 

Q.  Did  I  not  understand  you  to  say  that  Mr.  Stanton,  when  he  came  in  and 
the  salutes  were  passed,  asked'him  what  business  he  had  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  in  reply  to  that  he  said  what  I  have  stated.  I  did  not  know 
yon  wished  me  to  repeat  wiiat  I  had  stated.     I  stated  that. 

Q.  In  reply  to  that  question  of  Mr.  Stanton,  what  did  Mr.  Thomas  say? 

A.  He  said  he  was  there  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  intvrim,  to  take  possession 
of  the  office.  Mr.  Stanton  told  him :  "  General  Thomas,  I  am  Secretary  of  War  ; 
you  are  the  Adjutant  General;   I  order  you  to  your  room,  sir." 

Q.  He  ordered  him  to  his  room? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  reply  ? 

A.  The  reply  was  tliat  he  would  not  obey  the  order;  that  he  (Thomas)  was 
Secretary  of  War  ad  interim. 

Q.  What  followed  that? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  there  was  anything  further.  Very  soon  after  that 
General  Thomas  retired  over  to  General  Scliriver's  room;  IMr.  Stanton  followed 
him  and  asked  me  to  go  over,  and  I  have  given  you  what  occurred  there. 

Q.  After  General  Thomas  left,  did  Mr.  Stanton  tell  you  why  he  wanted  you 
to  accompany  him? 

A.  No. 

Q.  But  he  asked  you  to  go  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  173 

Q.  Did  you  know  wLere  he  was  going? 

A.  I  knew  he  was  going  over  to  that  room. 

Q.  Did  you  know  be  was  going  to  have  a  further  conversation  with  General 
Thomas  ? 

A.   I  expected  so ;  hut  he  did  not  say  so. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  any  one  else  besides  yourself  to  go  ? 

A.  I  expect  not. 

Q.  Did  any  one  else  go  besides  yourself? 

A.  Mr.  Van  Horn  and  some  other  gentleman  followed. 

Q.  Did  you  get  into  the  room  as  soon  as  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

A.  Immediately  after  him. 

Q.  Did  you  get  there  before  any  conversation  began? 

A.  I  think  about  the  time.  I  followed  immediately,  and  there  was  no  con- 
versation of  any  marked  significance  until  that  which  I  have  mentioned. 

Q.  What  was  the  conversation,  significant  or  not,  that  took  place  between 
Mr.  Stanton  and  General  Thomas  after  you  got  into  that  room? 

A.  I  cannot  recite  it,  because,  as  I  told  you,  I  did  not  take  a  memorandum 
of  it,  and  it  was  not  important  enough  to  be  impressed  on  my  mind.  I  do  not 
recollect. 

Q.  But  you  have  an  impression  that  there  was  some? 
«     A.  I  think  there  was  some — perhaps  joking,  or  something  of  that  kind,    They 
appeared  to  be  in  pretty  good  humor  with  each  other. 

Q.  That  is,  the  parties  did  not  seem  to  be  in  any  passion,  at  all? 

A.  Not  hostile. 

Q.  But  in  good  humor  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Joking? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  of  the  jokes  that  passed? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  who  first  commenced  the  serious  conversation  in  Schriver's  room  ? 

A.  Mr.  Stanton,  I  think,  asked  this  question. 

Q.  When  the  question  was  answered,  as  I  understand,  Mr.  Stanton  desired 
you  to  remember  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  immediately  you  left  the  room?    ' 

A.  Very  shortly  after. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  said  between  them  except  that,  before  you  left 
the  room  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  get  back  to  Mr.  Stanton's  room,  or  only  into  the  ante-cbamber  or 
hall,  and  then  return? 

A.  I  had  got  back  to  Mr.  Stanton's  room,  I  think,  or  to  the  door. 

Q.  What  then  induced  you  to  return  to  General  Schriver'a  room  ? 

A.  I  found  there  was  some  question  asked  there  then  that  I  thought  was 
important,  and  I  paid  some  attention  to  that,  and  I  then  went  to  hear  what  that 
was  ;  and  then  Mr.  Stanton  told  me  that  he  wanted  me  to  take  notice  of  that. 

Q.  That  was  as  to  the  mails  of  the  department  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Anything  further  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  what  I  read.  There  was,  in  addition  to  the  mails  of  the  depart- 
ment, a  statement  that  he  was  there  as  Secretary  of  War. 

Q.  After  that  did  you  remain  any  longer  in  Schriver's  room  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  think  not. 

Q.  W^ho  came  out  first,  Mr.  Stanton  or  yourself? 

A.  I  came  out  first,  and  left  Mr.  Stanton  there. 


174  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  How  long  did  Mr.  Stanton  remain  there  after  you  left  ? 

A.  I  think  a  very  short  time,  for  I  left  about  that  time  to  go  to  the  Capitol. 
It  was  then  getting  on  towards  12  o'clock. ;  and  I  left,  and  1  know  I  did  not 
get  to  the  Capitol  until  after  12  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  all  the  company  then  leave  ? 

A.  Most  of  them  left.     I  think  the  members  of  the  House  all  left. 

Q.  Who  staid? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  who  staid.  There  were  a  number  of  gentlemen 
there,  though. 

Q.  Who  do  you  recollect  was  there,  besides  members  of  the  House  ? 

A.  I  cannot  call  to  mind  now,  or  give  the  name  of  a  gentleman  that  was 
there,  but  I  know  there  were  others. 

Q.  Were  any  other  gentlemen  there  except  the  regular  clerks  of  the  depart- 
ment at  that  time? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  others  than  clerks  of  the  department. 

Q.  Were  they  militaiy  men  or  civilians  1 

A.  During  some  part  of  the  morning  there  was  a  military  man  there.  I 
believe  during  the  time  I  was  there  1  saw  General  Grant  there. 

Q,  At  what  time  was  he  there  1 

A.  I  think  it  was  during  that  morning,  but  I  am  not  certain.  I  have  been 
there  a  good  many  times,  and  I  have  seen  him  there  at  different  times. 

Q.  Was  he  there  during  either  of  these  conversations  that  you  have  mentioned  ? 

A.  Ko,  sir ;  he  was  not  present  at  the  conversations. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  the  conversations  that  General  Grant  came  in  ? 

A.  I  have  stated  that  I  was  not  distinct  about  tlie  time,  nor  certain  whether 
it  was  that  morning  or  at  another,  but  I  rather  think  he  was  there  during  that 
morning. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  observation  on  the  part  of  General  Thomas,  to  the 
effect  that  he  wished  no  unpleasantness  ? 

A,  I  do  not  think  I  recollect  his  using  that  term. 

Q.  Anything  like  it? 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  there  appear  to  be  any  unpleasantness  ? 

A.  There  did  not ;  General  'ihomas  wanted  to  get  in,  I  thought,  and  Mr. 
Stanton  did  not  want  to  go  out. 

Q.  But  there  Avas  nothing  otTensive  on  either  side  ? 

A.  There  was  nothing  very  belligerent  on  either  side. 

Q.  WavS  there  any  joking  ia  Mr.  btautou's  room,  as  well  as  in  Schriver's  room  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Any  occasiou  for  a  laugh  1 

A.  It  was  more  stern  in  Mr.  Stanton's  room,  as  he  once  or  twice  ordered 
General  Thomas  to  go  to  his  room  as  a  subordinate. 

Q.  That  was  the  only  thing  that  looked  like  sternness  ? 

A.  That  was  rather  stern,  1  thought. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  ; 
Q.  The  counsel  for  the  President  asked  you  if  Geucral   Thomas  was  armed 
on  that  occasion  ;  will  you  allow  me  to  ask  if  ou  that  occasion  he  was  masked  ? 
A.  He  was  not,  sir. 

Hon.  Walter  A.  Burlkioh  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  What  is  your  name  and  position  ? 

A.  My  name  is  Walter  A.  Hurleigh.     At  present  I  am  a  delegate  from  Dakota 
Territory  in  the  lower  house  of  Congress. 
Q.  Do  you  know  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  General  of  the  army  1 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  175 

A.  I  do,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  bim  ? 

A.  For  Several  years ;  I  cannot  say  how  many. 

Q.  Have  you  been  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  bim] 

A.  I  have  been. 

Q.  He  visiting  your  house,  and  you  bis  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  an  occasion  when  you  bad  some  conversation  with  Mr. 
Moorhead  about  visitiug  Mr.  Stanton's  office?  Do  you  remember  that  you  had 
such  a  conversation? 

A.  1  recollect  going  to  the  Secretary  of  War  with  Mr.  Moorhead  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  22d  of  February  last,  I  think. 

Q.  Had  you  on  the  evening  before  seen  General  Thomas? 

A.  I  bad. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  At  his  house. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  evening? 

A.  In  the  early  part  of  the  evening;  I  cannot  name  precisely  the  hour. 

Q.  Had  you  a  conversation  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Stanbery.  Wait  a  moment,  if  you  please.  What  is  the  relevancy 
of  that  to  this  inquiry  ?  I  understand  this  is  about  a  conversation  of  this  wit- 
ness with  General  Thomas. 

A.  Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  object  is  to  show  the  intent  and  purpose 
with  which  General  Thomas  went  to  the  War  Department  on  the  morning  of  the 
22d  of  February;  that  he  went  with  the  intent  and  purpose  of  taking  posses- 
sion by  force ;  that  he  alleged  that  intent  and  purpose  ;  that  in  consequence  of 
that  allegation  Mr.  Burleigh  invited  General  Moorehead  and  went  up  to  the 
War  Office.  The  conversation  which  I  expect  to  prove  is  this  :  after  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  bad  appointed  General  Thomas  and  given  him  direc- 
tions to  take  the  War  Office,  and  after  he  had  made  a  quiet  visit  there  on  the 
21st,  on  the  evening  of  the  21st  he  told  Mr.  Burleigh  that  the  next  day  he  was 
going  to  take  possession  by  force.     Mr.  Burleigh  said  to  him 

Jlr.  Stanbery.  No  matter  about  that.     We  object  to  that  testimony. 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  do  not  know  what  you  object  to  if  you  do  not 
bear  what  1  offer. 

Mr.  Sta.nbery.  We  object  to  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  know  sufficiently  for  the  purpose  of  the  objection. 
The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  the  testimony  is  competent, ' 
and  it  will  be  heard  unless  the  Senate  think  otherwise. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  suppose,  sir,  that  the  question  of  the  competency  of  evidence 
in  this  court  is  a  matter  to  be  determined  by  the  Senate,  and  not  by  the  presid- 
ing officer  of  the  court.  The  question  should  be  submitted,  I  think,  sir,  to  the 
Senate.  I  take  exception  to  the  presiding  officer  of  the  court  undertaking  to 
decide  a  point  of  that  kind. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  is  of  opinion  that  it  is  his  duty  to 
decide  preliminarily  upon  objections  to  evidence.  If  he  is  incorrect  in  that 
opinion  it  will  be  for  the  Senate  to  correct  him. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  appeal,  sir,  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair,  and  demand  a  vote 
of  the  Senate  upon  the  question. 

Mr.  Fowler.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  beg  to  know  what  your  decision  is. 
The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  states  to  the  Senate  that  in  his  judg- 
ment it  is  his  duty  to  decide  upon  questions  of  evidence  in  the  first  instance, 
and  that  if  any  senator  desires  that  the  question  shall  then  be  submitted  to  the 
Senate  it  is  his  duty  to  submit  it.     So  far  as  he  is  aware,  that  has  been  the 


176  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

usual  course  of  practice  in  trials  of  persons  impeachecl  in  the  House  of  Lords 
and  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Drakf..  My  position,  Mr.  President,  is  that  there  is  nothinoj  in  the  rules 
of  this  Senate  sittinoj  upon  the  trial,  of  an  impeachment  which  gives  that 
authority  to  the  Chief  Justice  pre.^iding  over  the  body. 

Mr.  Fessknue.v.  The  senator  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  JoHi\so.\.  I  call  the  honorable  member  from  Missouri  [Mr.  Drake]  to 
order.     The  question  is  not  debatable  in  the  Senate. 

Jllr.  Drake.  I  am  not  debating  it ;   I  am  stating  my  point  of  order. 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  senator  will  come  to  order. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  the  President  please,  is  not  this  question  debatable? 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  debatable  by  the  manngers  and  counsel  for  the 
defendant ;  not  by  senators. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  "VVe  have  the  honor,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of 
the  Senate,  to  object  to  the  ruling  just  attempted  to  be  made  by  tbe  presiding 
officer  of  the  Senate,  and  with  the  utmost  submission,  but  with  an  equal  degree 
of  firmness, 'we  must  insist  upon  our  objection,  because,  otherwise,  it  would 
always  put  the  managers  in  the  condition,  when  the  ruling  was  against  them,  of 
appealing  to  the  Senate  as  a  parliamentary  body  against  the  ruling  of  the  Chair. 
We  have  been  too  long  in  parliamentary  and  other  bodies  not  to  know  how 
much  disadvantage  it  is  to  be  put  in  that  position — the  position,  whether  real  or 
apparent,  of  appealing  from  the  ruling  of  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Si'nate. 
We  are  vei-y  glad  that  this  question  has  come  up  upon  a  ruling  of  the  presiding 
officer  which  is  in  onr  favor,  so  that  we  do  not  appear  to  be  invidious  in  making 
the  objection.  Although  it  has  fallen  from  the  presiding  officer  that  he  under- 
stands that  all  the  precedents  are  in  the  direction  of  his  intimation  of  opinion, 
yet,  if  we  understand  the  position  taken,  the  precedents  are  not  in  support  of 
that  position.  Lest  I  should  have  the  misfortune  to  misstate  the  position  of  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  I  will  state  it  as  I  understand  it,  subject  to  his 
correction. 

I  u'nderstaud  the  position  to  be  that  primarily,  as  a  judge  in  court  would  have 
the  right  to  do,  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  claims  the  right  to  rule  a 
question  of  law,  and  then  if  any  member  of  the  court  chooses  to  object,  it  must 
be  done  in  the  nature  of  an  ajipeal  as  taken  by  one  Senator  just  now.  If  I  am 
incorrect  in  my  statt;ment  of  the  position  of  the  presiding  officer  I  beg  to  be 
corrected. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  state  the  rule  which  he  con- 
ceives to  be  applicable  once  more.  In  this  body  he  is  the  presiding  officer  ;  he 
is  so  in  virtue  of  his  high  office  under  the  Constitution.  He  is  Chief  Justice  of 
the  United  States,  and,  therefore,  wluai  the  President  of  the  United  States  is 
tried  by  the  Senate,  it  is  his  duty  to  preside  in  that  body.;  and,  as  he  under- 
stands, he  is,  therefore,  the  President  of  the  Senati;  sUtingas  a  court  of  impi^aeh- 
ment.  The  rule  of  the  Senate  which  apjilics  to  this  question  is  the  seventh  rule, 
which  declares  that  "  the  presiding  officer  may,  in  the  first  instance,  submit  to 
the  Senate,  without  a  division,  all  questions  of  evidence  and  incidental  ques- 
tions." He  is  not  required  by  that  rule  so  to  submit  those  questions  in  the  first 
instance;  but  for  the  despatch  of  business,  as  is  usual  in  the  Supreme  Court,  he 
expresses  liis  opinion  in  the  first  instance.  If  the  Senate,  who  constitute  the 
court,  or  any  member  of  it,  desires  the  o])inion  of  the  Senate  to  be  taken,  it  is 
his  duty  then  to  ask  for  the  opini(jn  of  the  court. 

j\Ir.  Manager  Butler.  May  1  respecifully  in(|uire  whether  that  would 
extend  to  a  manager;  whether  a  manager  would  have  the  right  to  ask  tliat  a 
question  of  law  should  be  submitted  to  tln^  Scniate  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Ju>tice  thinks  not.  It  must  be  by  the 
action  of  the  court  or  a  member  of  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  this  matter  becomes   of  very   important  and 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  177 

momentous  substance,  because  the  presiding  officer,  who  is  not  a  member  of  the 
court,  who  has  no  vote  in  the  court,  as  we  understand  it,  except  possibly  upon 
a  question  of  equal  division,  gives  a  decision  on  a  question  of  law,  it  may  be  of 
the  first  importance — which,  if  made,  jireclndes  the  House  of  Representatives 
from  asking  even  that  the  Senate,  who  are  the  triers,  shall  pass  upon  it.  There- 
fore if  this  is  to  b(;  adopted  as  a  rule  our  hands  are  tied ;  and  it  was  in  order  to 
get  the  exact  rule  that  I  have  asked  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  to  state, 
as  he  has  kindly  and  fully  stated,  his  exact  position. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Mr.  ]\Ianager,  the  Chief  Justice  has  no  doubt  of  the 
right  of  the  honorable  managers  to  propose  any  question  they  see  fit  to  the 
Senate,  but  it  is  for  the' Senate  itself  to  determine  how  a  question  shall  be 
taken. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  understand  the  distinction.  It  is  a  plain  one. 
The  managers  may  propose  a  question  to  the  Senate,  and  the  Chief  Justice 
decides  it,  and  we  then  cannot  get  the  question  we  propose  before  the  Senate 
unless  through  the  courtesy  of  some  senator.  I  think  1  state  the  position  with 
accuracy  ;  and  it  is  the  one  to  which  we  object,  I  again  say,  respectfully  as 
we  ought,  but  firmly,  as  we  must. 

Now,  how  are  the  precedents  upon  this  question  ?  Sorry  I  am  to  be  obliged 
to  deny  the  position  taken  by  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  that  the  pre- 
cedents in  this  country  and  England  are  with  him.  I  understand  that  this 
question,  as  a  question  of  precedents  in  England,  has  been  settled  many,  many 
years,  hi;ndreds  of  years.  Not  expecting  that  it  would  arise  here,  1  have  not 
at  hand  at  this  moment  all  the  books  to  which  I  could  refer,  but  I  can  give  a 
leading  case  where  this  question  arose.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  it  arose  in  the 
trial  of  Lord  Strafford,  in  the  thirty-second  year  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II. 
The  House  of  Lords  had  a  rule  prior  to  the  trial  of  Straffiird,  by  which  the 
Commons  were  bound  to  address  the  lord  high  steward  as  his  grace  or  "  my 
lord,"  precisely  as  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  seem  to  think  themselves 
obhged  to  address  the  presiding  officer  of  this  body  as  "Mr.  Chief  Justice." 
When  the  preliminaries  of  the  trial  of  Straffiird  and  the  other  popish  lords  were 
settled,  the  Commons  objected  that,  as  a  part  of  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain, 
they  ought  not  to  be  called  upon  through  their  managers  to  address  any  indi- 
vidual whatever,  and  that  their  address  should  be  made  to  the  Lords  in  Parlia- 
ment. A  committee  of  conference  between  the  Commons  and  Peers  was  there- 
upon had,  and  the  rule  previously  adopted  in  the  House  of  Lords  was,  after 
Vnuch  consideration,  rescinded,  and  a  rule  was  reported  and  adopted  in  that  trial, 
and  it  has  obtained  ever  since  in  all  other  trials.  The  result  of  the  conference 
is  stated  in  this  way  : 

On  tlie  29th  of  November,  1680,  it  is  agreed  at  the  joint  committee,  upon  the  objection  made 
by  the  Comnion.s  to  one  of  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  Lords,  viz :  That  when  the  Commons 
should  ask  any  questions  at  the  frial  they  should  apply  themselves  to  the  lord  steward,  that 
the  managers  should  speak  to  the  Lords  as  a  House,  and  say  "my  lords."  and  not  to  the 
lord  high  steward,  and  say  "my  lord  "  or  "your  grace." 

A  reason  being  given  that  the  lord  high  steward  was  not  a  necessary  part  of 
the  court,  but  only  as  speaker  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  lords  themselves 
were  the  only  body  of  triers.  When  Lord  Strafford  came  to  the  bar  the  Lords, 
conformably  to  this  doctrine,  on  the  29th  of  November,  IGSO,  order — 

That  the  Lord  Strafford  shall  be  directed  to  apply  himself  to  the  Lords,  and  not  to  the  lord 
high  steward,  as  often  as  he  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  at  his  trial. 

And  from  that  day  to  the  latest  trial  in  Parliament,  which  is  the  Earl  of 
Cardigan  case,  in  1841,  the  rule  has  been  followed.  Earl  Cardigan  being  tried 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  Lord  Chief  Justice  Denman  presided  upon  that  trial, 
and  in  that  case,  as  in  all  the  others,  the  body  was  universally  addressed  by 
counsel  on  all  sides,  by  prisoner,  by  managers,  by  everybody,  as  "  my  lords," 
so  that  there  should  be  no  recognition  of  any  superior  right  in  the  presiding 
officer  over  any  other  member  of  the  assembly. 
•      12  I  p 


178  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Nor  need  I,  upon  tlii.s  matter  of  precedents,  stop  here.  In  more  than  these 
cases  this  question  has  arisen.  In  Lord  Macclesfiehl's  case,  in  1724,  if  I  remem- 
ber aright,  the  point  arose  whether  the  presiding  officer  shouhl  decide  an  inci- 
dental question  upon  the  trial ;  but  in  every  case  Lord  Chief  Justict;  King 
referred  all  questions  wholly  to  the  Lords,  saying  to  the  Lords,  "  You  may 
decide  as  you  please." 

Again,  when  Lord  Erskine  presided  on  the  trial  of  Lord  Melville,  which  was 
a  trial  early  in  the  century,  conducted  with  as  much  care,  regard  to  forms,  and 
with  the  utmost  preservation  of  decency  and  order  of  the  proceedings,  the 
question  was  put  to  him  whether  he  ruled  points  of  law,  and  he  expressly  dis- 
claimed that  power,  saying  in  substance,  on  every  ruling  of  an  incidental 
question,  "Unless  any  noble  lord  should  think  that  this  matter  should  be  further 
considered  in  the  Chamber  of  Parliament,  I  will  give  my  opinion,"  thereby 
always  submitting  the  question  to  the  lords  in  the  first  instance. 

Again,  in  Lord  Cardigan's  case,  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  when  a  ques- 
tion of  evidence  arose  as  to  whether  a  card  on  which  the  name  of  Harvey  Gar- 
nett  Tuckett  was  placed  should  be  given  in  evidence,  the  question  being  whether 
the  man's  name  was  Harvey  Garnett  Phipps  Tuckett  or  only  Harvey  Garnett 
Tuckett,  but  a  question  on  which  the  whole  trial  finally  turned  when  afterward 
the  whole  evidence  was  in,  Lord  Denman,  instead  of  deciding  the  question, 
submitted  it  to  the  lords,  as  follows  : 

The  iuconveuience  of  clearing  tLe  house  is  so  great  that  I  should  rather  venture  to  pro- 
pose that  the  decisiou  of  this  question,  if  your  lordships  should  be  called  upon  to  decide  it, 
had  better  be  postponed. 

The  question  was  not  at  that  time  pressed. 

And  when  the  attorney  general  of  England  made  his  argument  upon  the  evi- 
dence. Lord  Denman  arose  and  apologized  to  the  House  of  Lords  for  having 
allowed  him  to  argue,  and  said  in  substance  he  hoped  this  would  not  be  drawn 
into  a  precedent  in  criminal  trials,  but  that  he  did  not  think  it  quite  right  for 
him  to  interfere  and  stop  him.  And  when,  finally,  the  Lords  deliberated  with 
closed  doors  upon  the  point  taken,  and  Lord  Denman  gave  an  opinion  to  the 
Lords  upon  whether  the  proof  sustained  the  indictments,  his  lordship  said  : 

If,  my  lords,  the  present  were  an  ordinary  case,  tried  before  one  of  the  inferior  courts, 
and  the  same  objection  had  been  taken  in  this  sta<^e  to  the  proof  of  identitj',  tlu;  judp:e  would 
consult  liis  notes  and  exjilain  how  far  he  thought  the  objection  well  founded,  and  I  appre- 
hend that  the  jury  would  at  once  return  a  verdict  of  acquittal. 

Your  lordships  sitting  in  this  high  court  of  parliauieut  vuiite  the  functions  of  both.  I 
have  stated  my  own  views,  as  an  individual  member  of  the  court,  of  the  questiou  by  you 
to  be  considered,  discussed,  and  decided.  Though  I  have  commenced  the  debate,  it  cannot 
be  necessary  for  me  to  disclaim  the  purpose  of  dictating  my  own  opinion,  which  is  respect- 
fully laid  before  you  with  the  hope  of  eliciting  those  of  the  house  at  large.  If  any  other  duty 
is  cast  ui)0n  me,  or  if  there  is  any  more  convenient  course  to  be  pursued,  I  sliall  be  greatly 
indebted  to  any  of  your  lordships  \vho  will  ht)  so  kind  as  to  instruct  me  in  it.  In  tiie  absence 
of  any  otiier  suggestion,  I  ventiue  to  declare  my  own  judgment,  grounded  on  the  reasons 
briefly  submitted,  that  the  Earl  of  Cardigan  is  entitled  to  be  declared  not  guilty. 

Now,  then,  in  the  light  of  authority,  in  the  light  of  the  precedents  to  which 
the  presiding  officer  has  appealed,  in  the  light  of  reason,  and  in  the  light'of  j)riii- 
ciple,  we  are  bound  to  object  to  this  claim  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  Chief 
Justice.  I  say  again  that  it  is  not  a  mere  questiou  of  form,  for  all  mere  forms 
we  would  waive,  but  it  is  a  question  of  substance.  It  is  a  question  whether  tlie 
House  of  Representatives  can  bring,  by  their  own  motion,  to  the  Senate  a  ques- 
tion of  law  if  the  Chief  Justice  who  is  presiding  chooses  to  stand  between  the 
Senate  and  the  House  and  its  prosecution.  That  is  a  question  of  vital  impor- 
tance, upon  which,  for  the  benefit  of  the;  people  for  all  time  hereafter,  if  it  did 
not  make  any  dilference  in  this  case,  1  would  not  yield  one  hair,  because  no  jot 
or  tittle  of  the;  rights  of  the  ])eople  or  of  the  Houso  ul'  Ivepresentatives,  so  far  as 
I  understand  them,  shall  ever  full  to  the  ground  by  any  iuatteuliou  or  inadver- 
tence or  yielding  of  mine. 


IMPEACHMENT   OP   THE   PRESIDENT.  179 

Allow  me  to  state  again  the  proposition  declared  by  the  learned  presiding 
officer,  because  to  me  it  seems  an  invasion  of  the  privileges  of  the  House  of 
Representatives.  It  is  this :  that  when  the  House  of  Representatives  proposes  a 
question  of  law  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  trial  by  impeachment 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  Chief  Justice  presiding  in  this  as  a 
court  can  stand  between  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  Senate  and  decide 
the  question ;  and  then,  unless  by  the  courtesy  of  some  senator  who  may  be 
induced  to  make  a  motion  for  them,  the  House  of  Representatives,  through  its 
managers,  cannot  get  that  question  of  law  decided  by  the  Senate. 

I  should  be  inclined  to  deem  it  my  duty,  and  I  believe  my  associate  managers 
will  agree  with  me  if  we  are  put  in  that  position,  to  ask  leave  to  withdraw  and  take 
instruction  from  the  House  before  we  lay  the  rights  of  the  House,  bound  hand 
and  foot,  at  the  feet  of  any  one  man,  however  high  or  good  or  just  he  may  be  ; 
for,  as  1  respectfully  bring  to  your  attention,  it  is  a  question  of  most  momentous 
consequence,  although  not  so  great,  not  of  so  much  consequence  now,  when  we 
have  a  learned,  able,  honest,  candid,  patriotic  Chief  Justice  in  the  chair,  as  it 
may  be  hereafter.  Let  us  look  forward  to  the  time  which  may  come  in  the  his- 
tory of  this  nation  when  we  get  a  Jeffries  as  lord  high  steward  or  Chief  Justice. 
I  want,  then,  that  the  precedent  set  in  this  good  time,  by  good  men,  when  every- 
thing is  quiet,  when  the  country  is  not  disturbed,  to  be  such  as  to  hold  any 
future  Jeffries  as  did  the  precedents  of  old ;  for  this  brings  to  my  mind  Jef- 
fries's  conduct  on  an  exactly  similar  question,  when  he  was  held  bound  by  the 
precedents  of  the  House  of  Lords.  In  the  trial  of  Lord  Delamere,  Chief  Justice 
Jeffries,  being  lord  high  steward,  presiding,  said  to  the  earl  as  he  came  to 
plead — I  give  substance  now,  not  words — "  My  lord,  you  had  better  confess 
and  throw  yourself  on  the  mercy  of  the  King,  your  master;  he  is  the  fountain 
of  all  mercy,  and  it  will  be  better  for  you  so  to  do."  The  accused  earl  replied 
to  him :  "  Are  you,  my  lord,  one  of  my  judges,  that  give  me  such  advice  here 
on  my  trial  for  my  death  V  Jeffries,  quailing  before  the  indignant  eye  of  the 
man  whose  rights  he  was  interfering  with,  said  :  "  No,  I  am  not  one  of  your 
judges ;  I  only  advise  you  as  a  friend."  I  desire  the  precedent  fixed  now  in 
good  times  as  strong  as  they  were  before  Jeffries's  time,  so  that  hereafter,  when 
we  get  a  Jeffries,  if  we  ever  have  that  misfortune,  he  shall  be  bound  by  them. 
We  have  had  a  Johnson  in  the  presidential  chair  ;  and  we  cannot  tell  who  may 
get  into  the  chair  of  the  Chief  Justice  in  the  far  future ;  but,  if  we  ever  do  get  a 
Jeffries  in  that  chair,  I  want  the  precedent  upon  this  point  so  settled  now  that 
it  cannot  be  in  any  way  disturbed,  so  as  to  hold  him  to  the  true  rule  as  with 
hooks  of  steel. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  will  state  the  question  for  the  consideration 
of  the  Senate.  The  honorable  manager  put  a  question  to  the  witness.  It  was 
objected  to  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  for  the  President.  The  Chief  Justice  is 
of  opinion  that  it  is  his  duty  to  express  his  judgment  upon  that  question,  sub- 
ject to  having  the  question  put  upon  the  requisition  of  any  senator  to  the 
Senate.     Are  you  ready  for  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Grlmes.  The  question  is,  whether  the  judgment  of  the  Chief  Justice 
shall  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Drake.  No,  sir.  I  raise  the  question  that  the  presiding  officer  of  the 
Senate  had  no  right  to  make  a  decision  of  that  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  wish  that  question  put  to  the  Senate,  sir. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  will  come  to  order, 

Mr.  CoNKLiiNG.  Mr.  President,  I  rise  for  information  from  the  Chair.  I  beg 
to  inquire  whether  the  question  upon  which  the  Senate  is  about  to  vote  is 
whether  the  proposed  testimony  be  competent  or  not,  or  whether  the  presiding 
officer  be  competent  to  decide  that  question  or  not  1 


180  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  tlie  last  question,  whetlier  the  Chair  iu  the  first 
instance  may  state  his  judgment  upon  such  a  question.  That  is  the  question 
for  the  consideration  of  the  Senate.     The  yeas  and  nays  will  be  called. 

Mr.  CoNKLL\G.  Before  the  yeas  and  nays  are  called,  I  beg  that  the  whole 
of  the  latter  clause  of  the  seventh  rule  may  be  read  for  the  information  of  the 
Senate. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  Secretary.)  Read  the  rule. 

Mr.  Howard.  Read  the  whole  of  the  rule. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

YII.  The  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  shall  direct  all  necessary  preparations  in  the  Senate 
chamber,  and  the  presiding  officer  npou  the  trial  shall  direct  all  the  forms  of  proceeding 
while  the  Senate  are  sitting  for  the  purpose  of  trying  an  impeachment,  and  all  forms  during 
the  trial  not  otherwise  specially  provided  for.  The  presiding  officer  may,  in  the  first 
instance,  submit  to  the  Senate,  without  a  division,  all  questions  of  evidence  and  incidental 
questions ;  but  the  same  shall,  on  the  demand  of  one-lifth  of  the  members  present,  be 
decided  by  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  after  con.«iiltation  with  my  associate 
managers,  I  ask  leave  to  make  some  additional  remarks  to  the  Senate  before  this 
vote  be  taken,  and  to  call  the  attention  of  senators  especially  to  rule  seven  to 
which  the  President  made  reference.  We  think  ourselves  justified  in  asking  the 
Senate  to  consider  that  rule  seven  does  not  contemplate  an}-  departure  from  the 
long-established  usage  governing  proceedings  of  this  character;  in  other  words, 
that  rule  seven  simply  does  provide  that  "  The  presiding  officer  may,  in  the  first 
instance,  submit  to  the  Senate,  without  a  division,  all  questions  of  evidence  and. 
incidental  questions  ;  but  the  same  shall,  on  the  demand  of  one-fifth  of  the  mem- 
bers present,  be  decided  by  yeas  and  nays."  "We  respectfully  submit  to  the 
Senate,  with  all  respect  to  the  presiding  officer,  that  this  rule  means  no  more 
than  this  :  that  if  no  question  be  raised  by  the  senators  and  one-fifth  do  not 
demand  the  yeas  and  nays,  it  authorizes  the  presiding  officer  simply  to  take 
the  sense  of  the  Senate  upon  all  such  (questions  MMthout  a  division,  and  there  it 
ends. 

I  beg  leave  further  to  say  to  the  senators,  in  connection  with  what  has  fallen 
already  from  my  associate,  that  I  look  upon  this  question  now  involved  iu  the 
decision  of  the  presiding  officer  as  settled  by  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  itself. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  the  senators  will  remember,  provides 
that  the  Senate  has  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments.  The  expression, 
"the  sole  power,"  as  the  Senate  will  doubtless  agree,  necessarily  means  the  only 
power.  It  includes  everything  pertaining  to  the  trial.  Every  judgiuiMit  that 
must  be  made  is  a  part  of  the  trial,  whether  it  be  upon  a  preliminary  question 
or  a  final  question.  It  seems  to  me  tliat  the  words  were  incorporated  in  the 
Constitution  touching  this  procedure  in  impeachment  in  the  very  light  of  the 
long-continued  usage  and  practice  in  Parliament.  It  is  settled,  I  beg  leave  to 
remind  senators,  in  the  very  elaborate  and  exhaustive  report  of  the  Commons  of 
England  upon  the  Lords'  Journals  that  the  peers  alone  decide  all  questions  of 
law  and  fact  arising  in  such  a  trial. 

It  is  settled,  in  other  words,  that  the  peers  alone  are  the  judges  in  every  case 
of  the  law  and  the  fact ;  that  the  lord  chancellor  presiding  is  but  a  ministerial 
officer  to  keep  order;  to  present  for  the  decision  of  the  peers  the  various  ques- 
tions as  they  arise;  to  take  their  judgment  upon  them;  and  there  his  authority 
stops. 

And  til  is  doctrine  is  considered  so  well  settled,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say 
further,  (here  speaking  from  recollection  of  that  which  1  have,  however,  care- 
fully examined,)  that  it  is  carried  into  the  great  text-books  of  the  law  and  finds 
a  place  in  the  fourth  Institule  of  Coke,  wherein  he  declares  that  the  peers  are 
the  judges  of  the  law  and  fact,  and  conduct  the  whole  proceedings  according  to 
the  law  and  usage  of  I'arliament. 

As  I  understand  this  question  as  it  is  presented  here,  I  agree  with  my  asso- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  181 

date  that  it  is  of  very  great  importance,  not  only  as  touching  the  admissibility 
of  evidence — for  we  certainly  have  no  ground  of  complaint  of  the  presiding  offi- 
cer for  the  ruling  he  made  touching  the  admissibility  of  the  evidence  which  we 
offer  through  this  witness — but  as  touching  every  other  question  that  can  arise ; 
for  example,  questions  that  may  involve  the  validity,  legality,  if  you  please,  of 
any  of  the  charges  preferi'ed  in  these  articles.  If  such  a  ruling  were  asked  here 
of  the  presiding  officer,  we  submit  that  it  is  not  competent  for  him  to  pronounce 
any  judgment  on  the  subject — that  it  is  alone  for  the  Senate  to  determine;  and 
they  determine  it  simply  for  the  reason,  as  I  said  before,  that  they  have  the  sole 
poAver  to  try  all  questions  involved  in  the  case. 

We  stand,  then,  upon  what  we  believe  has  been  the  uniform  practice  touching 
this  question  in  England,  and  we  consider  that  the  President  presiding  now  in 
the  Senate  has  no  more  power  over  this  question  before  the  Senate  than  has  the 
lord  chancellor,  when  he  presides  over  the  deliberations  of  the  peers,  to  decide 
any  question.  Being  himself  a  peer,  he  has  but  his  own  vote.  I  do  not  think 
a  case  can  be  found  wherein  it  was  consented  by  the  peers  that  the  lord  chan- 
cellor should  give  a  decision  in  any  case  which  is  to  stand  as  the  judgment  of 
the  court  without  consulting  the  peers.  That  is  the  position  that  we  assume, 
and  we  ask  it  to  be  understood  and  considered  by  the  Senate.  We  understand 
that  the  question  upon  which  the  vote  of  the  Senate  is  to  be  had  is,  whether  the 
Senate  shall  decide  that  the  presiding  officer,  himself  not  being  a  member  of 
that  body  which  is  invested  with  the  sole  power  to  try  impeachments,  and  there- 
fore to  decide  all  questions  in  the  trial,  can  himself  make  a  decision,  which  decision 
is  to  stand  as  the  judgment  of  this  tribunal  unless  reversed  by  a  subsequent 
action  of  the  Senate.  That  we  understand  to  be  the  question  that  is  submitted, 
and  upon  which  the  Senate  is  about  to  vote. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  And  that  the  managers  cannot  raise  the  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  It  is  also  suggested  by  my  associate  that  there  is 
also  involved  in  the  question  the  further  proposition  that  the  managers,  in  the 
event  of  such  decision  being  made  by  the  presiding  officer,  cannot  call  even  for 
a  review  of  that  decision  by  tlie  Senate. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  move  that  tlie  Senate  retire  for  the  purpose  of  consultation. 

Several  Senators.  No,  no. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Before  that  is  done  I  desire  to  submit  a  question  to  the  man- 
agers, in  accordance  with  the  rule. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Does  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  withdraw  his 
motion  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  withdraw  it  for  a  moment. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  send  to  the  Chair  a  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question  of  Mr.  Sherman,  as  follows  : 

I  ask  the  managers  what  are  the  precedents  in  the  cases  of  impeachment  in 
the  United  States  upon  this  point  1  Did  the  Vice-President,  as  presiding  officer, 
decide  preliminary  questions,  or  did  he  submit  them  in  the  first  instance  to  the 
Senate  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  I  am 
very  much  indisposed  to  ask  the  attention  of  the  Senate  further.  As  a  question 
concerning  the  rights  of  the  House  in  this  proceeding,  it  seems  to  me  of  the 
gravest  character ;  and  yet  I  can  very  well  foresee  that  the  practical  assertion 
on  all  questions  arising  in  a  protracted  trial  of  the  principle  which  the  managers 
assert  here  in  behalf  of  the  House  is  calculated  to  delay  the  proceeding,  and 
very  likely  at  times  to  involve  us  in  temporary  difficulties.  In  what  I  say  I 
speak  with  the  highest  personal  respect  for  the  Chief  Justice,  who  presides, 
being  fully  assured  that  in  the  rulings  he  might  make  upon  questions  of  law 
and  the  admissibility  of  testiuiony  he  would  always  be  guided  by  that  conscien- 
tious regard  for  the  right  for  which  he  is  eminently  distinguished. 


182  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

But  I  also  foresee  that  if  the  managers  acting  for  the  House  in  the  case  now 
before  the  Senate  and  before  the  country,  and  acting,  I  ma3^  .«ay,  in  belialf  of 
other  generations  and  of  other  men  who  unfortunately  may  be  similarly  situated 
in  future  times,  should  admit  that  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  sitting  here  as  the  presiding  officer  of  this  body  for  a  specified 
purpose,  and  for  a  specified  purpose  only,  has  a  right  to  decide,  even  as  prelim- 
inary to  the  final  judgment  of  the  Senate,  questions  of  law  and  evidence  which 
in  the  end  may  be  vital  in  the  decision  of  this  tribunal  upon  the  question  of  the 
guilt  or  the  innocence  of  the  person  arraigned,  they  should  make  a  surrender,  in 
substance,  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  House  and  the  constitutional  rights 
of  the  Senate  sitting  as  the  tribunal  to  try  impeachments  presented  by  the  House 
of  Representatives.  With  all  deference  I  maintain  that  the  language  of  the  Con- 
stitution, in  these  words — 

"When  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  tried  the  Chief  Justice  shall  preside" — 
is  conclusive  without  argument.  He  presides  here  not  as  a  member  of  this  body ; 
for  if  that  were  assumed  the  claim  would  be  in  derogation,  nay,  in  violation,  of 
another  provision  of  the  Constitution,  which  confides  to  the  Senate  the  sole 
power  of  trying  all  impeachments.  I  know  of  no  language  which  could  be  used, 
more  specific  in  its  character,  more  inclusive  and  exclusive  in  its  terms.  The 
language  includes,  as  has  been  maintained  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  in  the  opening 
argument,  all  the  members  of  the  Senate,  all  the  men  chosen  under  the  Consti- 
tution and  representing  the  several  States  of  tlie  Union,  whatever  may  be  their 
qualities,  whatever  may  be  their  capacities,  whatever  may  be  their  interests, 
whatever  may  be  their  afiiliation  with  or  to  the  person  accused.  The  Senate  sits 
in  its  constitutional  capacity  to  decide  under  the  Constitution  the  question  of  the 
guilt  of  the  accused,  with  all  the  felicities  and  with  all  the  infelicities  which  belong 
to  the  ti-ilmnal  organized*  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution.  We  must 
accept  it  as  it  is,  with  no  power  to  change  it  in  any  particular. 

So,  also,  the  words  of  the  Constitution  are  exclusive.  With  all  deference 
I  am  forced  to  assert  and  maintain  that  these  words  exclude  every  other  man, 
whatever  his  station,  rank,  position  elsewhere,  whatever  his  relations  to  this 
body  under  or  by  the  Constitution.  The  Senate,  by  the  Constitution,  has  the 
sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments,  and  no  person  not  of  the  Senate,  and  exer- 
cising the  functions  of  a  senator  in  legislative  and  executive  affairs,  can  in  any 
way  interfere  or  control  or  affect  their  decision  or  their  judgment  in  the  slightest 
degree.  Therefore,  Mr.  President,  it  must  follow  as  a  constitutional  duty  that 
the  Senate,  without  advice,  as  a  matter  of  right,  must  decide  every  incidental 
question  which,  by  any  possibility,  can  control  the  ultimate  judgment  of  the 
Senate  upon  the  great  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  party  accused. 
If,  under  any  circumstances,  the  testimony  of  a  witness  proffered  may  be 
denied,  or  may  be  admitted,  upon  the  judgment  of  any  person,  or  by  any 
authority,  except  upon  the  judgment  and  autliority  of  the  tribunal  before  which 
we  here  stand,  then  a  party  accused  and  impeached  by  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives may  be  acquitted  or  he  may  be  convicted  upon  any  authority  or  opinion 
which  is  not  in  fact  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  itself.  Upon  this  point  T  think 
there  can  finally  be  no  ditterence  of  opinion. 

But,  Mr.  President,  as  one  of  the  maiiagers,  and  without  having  had  an 
opportunity  to  consult  my  associates  on  the  point,  and  s})eaking,  therefore,  with 
delerence  to  what  may  bf  their  judgment,  or  what  might  be  the  judgment  of  the 
House,  I  shall  be  willing  to  proceed  in  the  conduct  of  this  case  upon  the  under- 
standing that  the  right  is  here  and  now  solemnly  asserted  by  the  Senate  for 
themselves,  and  as  a  precedent  for  all  their  successors,  that  every  question  of 
law  is  to  be  decided  by  the  Senate  without  consultation  with  the  presiding 
officer.  I  hold  that  the  judgment  must  be  exclusively  with  the  Senate.  Still 
I  fim  willing  that  in  all  these  proceedings  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate 
shall  give  his  opinion  or  his  ruling,  if  you  please  to  call  it  a  ruling,  upon  ques- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  183 

tions  incidental  of  law  and  evidence  as  they  arise,  unless  some  member  of  the 
Senate,  or  the  managers,  or  the  counsel  for  the  respondent,  should  first  desire 
the  judgment  of  the  Senate. 

I  happen  to  have  an  extract  from  the  record  in  the  case  referred  to  by  my 
associate,  and  I  will  read  it  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate. 

In  the  trial  of  Lord  Melville,  wliich  is  reported  in  the  twenty-ninth  volume 
of  the  State  Trials,  Lord  Chancellor  Erskine  evidently  acted  upon  this  idea. 
Upon  a  question  of  the  admissibility  of  testimony,  it  having  been  argued  by  the 
managers  on  one  side  and  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  on  the  other.  Lord 
Erskine  said : 

If  any  noble  lord  is  desirous  that  this  subject  should  be  a  matter  of  further  consideration 
in  the  Chamber  of  Parliament,  it  will  be  proper  that  he  should  now  move  to  adjourn  ;  if 
not,  I  have  formed  an  opinion,  and  shall  express  it. 

To  that  theory  of  the  administration  of  the  duties  of  the  Chair  with  refer- 
ence to  the  rights  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  to  the  rights  of  the 
respondent,  for  myself,  I  should  not  object ;  but  I  cannot  conscientiously,  even 
in  this  presence,  consent  to  the  doctrine  as  a  matter  of  right  that  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  Senate  is  to  decide  interlocutory  questions,  and  especially  to  decide 
them  under  such  circumstances  that  it  will  not  be  in  the  power  of  the  managers 
to  take  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  upon  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  the  decision. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  By  leave  of  the  Senate  I  desire  to  read  in  their 
hearing  an  abstract  wliich  I  have  made  touching  this  question  from  the  author- 
ities to  which  I  referred,  and  which  I  believe  is  accurate.  I  read  first  in  the 
hearing  of  the  Senate  the  abstract  which  was  made  from  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mons of  England  upon  the  Lords'  Journals: 

RELATION  OF  JUDO'ES,  ETC.,  TO  THE  COURT  OF  PARLIAMENT. 

Upon  examining  into  the  course  of  proceeding  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  into  the  relation 
which  exists  between  the  peers  on  the  one  hand,  and  their  attendants  and  assistants,  the 
judges  of  the  realm,  barons  of  the  exchequer  of  the  coif,  the  King's  learned  counsel,  and  the 
civilians  masters  of  the  chancery  on  the  other,  it  appears  to  your  committee  that  these  judges 
and  other  persons  learned  in  the  common  and  civil  laws  are  no  integrant  and  necessary  part 
of  that  court.  Their  writs  of  summons  are  essentially  different ;  and  it  does  not  appear  that 
they  or  any  of  them  have,  or  of  right  ought  to  have,  a  deliberate  voice,  either  actually  or 
virtually,  in  the  judgments  given  in  the  high  court  of  Parliament.  Their  attendance  in 
that  court  is  solely  ministerial ;  and  their  answers  to  questions  put  to  them  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  declaratory  of  the  law  of  Parliament,  but  as  merely  consultory  responses,  in  order 
to  furnish  such  matter  (to  be  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  peers)  as  may  be  useful  in 
reasoning  by  analogy,  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  rules  in  the  respective  courts  of  the  learned 
persons  consulted  shall  appear  to  the  peers  to  be  applicable  to  the  nature  and  circumstances 
of  the  case  before  them,  and  not  otherwise.  (8  Burke  p.  42 ;  report  on  the  Lords'  Journal ; 
trial  of  Warren  Hastings.) 

In  the  volume  of  Burke  here  quoted  the  report  is  set  out  at  length.  I  read 
further  from  the  same  report : 

Jurisdiction  of  the  Lords, 

Your  committee  finds  that  in  all  impeachments  of  the  Commons  of  Great  Britain  for 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  before  the  peere  in  the  high  court  of  Parliament,  the  peers 
are  not  triers  or  jurors  only,  but  by  the  ancient  laws  and  constitution  of  this  kingdom  known 
by  constant  usage  are  judges  both  of  law  and  fact ;  and  we  conceive  that  the  Lords  are 
bound  not  to  act  in  such  a  manner  as  to  give  rise  to  an  opinion  that  they  have  virtually 
submitted  to  a  division  of  their  legal  powers,  or  that,  putting  themselves  into  the  situation 
of  mere  triers  or  jurors,  they  may  suffer  the  evidence  in  the  cause  to  be  produced  or  not  pro- 
duced before  them,  according  to  the  discretion  of  the  judges  of  the  inferior  courts.  {S  Burke, 
p.  42  ;  Eeport  on  the  Lords'  Journals ;  Trial  of  Warren  Hastings. ) 

I  read,  also,  the  extract  from  fourth  Institute,  to  which  I  before  referred  : 
It  is  by  the  laws  and  customs  of  Parliament  that  all  weighty  matters  in  Parliament 
moved  concerning  the  peers  of  the  realm,  &c.,  ought  to  be  determined,  adjudged,  and  dis- 
cussed by  the  course  of  the  Parliament,  and  not  by  the  civil  law,  and  yet  by  the  common 
law  of  t^iis  realm  used  by  the  more  inferior  courts  ;  for  this  reason  the  judges  ought  not  to 
give  any  opinion  in  a  matter  of  Parliament.     (Fourth  Institute,  p.  15.) 


184  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  Mr.  President,  there  was  a  question  asked  by  one 
member  of  the  Senate  as  to  the  precedents.  I  have  sent  for  the  trial  of  Judge 
Chase,  which  I  read  from  the  third  volume  of  Benton's  Abridgment  of  the 
Debates  of  Congress.     The  rule  in  that  case  was  in  the  following  words  : 

All  motions  made  by  the  parties  or  their  counsel  shall  be  addressed  to  the  President  of 
the  Senate,  and,  if  he  sbaU  require  it  shall  bo  committed  to  writing,  and  read  at  the  Secre- 
tary's table ;  and  all  decisions  shall  be  had  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  without  debate,  which 
shall  be  entered  on  the  records. 

In  the  course  of  the  trial  there  arose  this  question  :  whether  a  Mr.  Hay,  a 
witness  in  the  case,  should  use  a  certain  paper  to  refresh  his  memory. 

Mr.  Harper  liere  interrupted  Mr.  Hay,  and  said  :  "The  witness  may  refer  to  anything  done 
by  himself  at  the  time  the  occurrence  happened  which  he  relates.  13ut  I  submit  it  to  the 
court  how  correct  it  is  to  refer  to  what  was  not  done  by  him,  or  done  at  the  time." 

The  President  asked  Mr.  Hay  whether  the  notes  were  taken  by  him. 

Mr.  Hay.  The  statement  was  made  by  different  persons.  Some  parts  were  made  by  my- 
self, perhaps  the  greater  part ;  the  rest  by  Mr.  Nicholas  and  Mr.  Wirt.  I  believe  I  shall  be 
able  to  state  from  it  every  material  occurrence  which  took  place  at  the  time. 

The  President.     Have  you  the  parts  made  by  yourself  separate  ? 

Mr.  Hay  said  he  had  not. 

The  President  then  put  the  question,  whether  the  witness  should  be  permitted  to  use  the 
paper ;  and  the  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  passed  in  the  negative — yeas  16, 
nays  18. 

There,  itpon  the  question  whether  ]\Ir.  Hay  should  refresh  his  memory  on  the 
stand  by  notes  which  were  not  made  by  himself,  which  was  certainly  an  inci- 
dental question  of  law,  the  President,  instead  of  undertaking  to  decide  it  in 
Chase's  case,  directly  put  the  question  to  the  court  and  had  it  decided  in  the 
first  instance  by  yea  or  nay,  not  expressing  any  opinion  whatever  upon  that 
question. 

We  have  nothing  further  to  add. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  rise,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  to  make  but  a  single 
observation  in  I'eference  to  a  position  or  an  argument  pressed  by  one  of  the  hon- 
orable managers  to  aid  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  upon  the  question  submit- 
ted to  it.  That  question  we  understand  to  be  whether,  according  to  the  rules 
of  this  body,  the  Chief  Justice  presiding  shall  determine,  preliminarily,  inter- 
locutory questions  of  evidence  and  of  law  as  they  arise,  subject  to  the  decision 
of  the  Senate  upon  presentation  by  any  senator  of  the  question  to  thf;m.  The 
honorable  manager,  Mr.  Boutwell,  recognizing  the  great  inconvenience  that 
would  arise  in  the  retarding  of  the  trial  from  this  appeal  to  so  numerous  a  body 
upon  every  interlocutory  question,  while  he  insists  upon  the  magnitude  and 
importance  of  the  right  determination,  yet  intimates  that  the  managers  will  allow 
the  Chief  Justice  to  decide,  unless  they  see  reason  to  object.  On  the  part  of 
the  counsel  for  the  President,  I  have  only  this  to  say  :  that  we  shall  take  from 
this  court  the  rule  as  to  whether  the  first  preliminary  decision  is  to  be  made  by 
the  Chief  Justice  or  is  to  be  made  by  the  whole  body,  and  we  shall  not  submit 
to  the  choice  of  the  managers  as  to  how  far  that  rule  shall  be  departed  from. 
Whatever  the  rule  is  we  shall  abide  by  it.  But  if  the  court  determines  that  in 
the  first  instance  the  proper  appeal  is  to  the  whole  body  on  every  interlocutory 
question,  we  shall  claim  as  a  matter  of  right  and  as  a  matter  of  course  that  that 
proceeding  shall  be  had. 

Mr.  Manager  BouTWELL.  That  is  conceded,  Mr.  President.  AVc  do  not 
debate  tliat  point. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  renew  my  motion  that  the  Senate  retire  for  consultation. 

Mr.  Thayer.  On  that  motion  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  Camero.x.  I  hope  we  shall  not  retire. 

Several  Senators.  Debate  is  out  of  order. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Cameron.  Well,  I  only  say  that 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  185 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  25,  nays  25  ;  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Authony,  Buckalew,  Cole,  Conncss,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Edmnnds, 
Fowler,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  Howe,  Johnson,  MeCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Ver- 
mont, Morton,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Pomeroy, 
Ross,  Vickers,  Williams,  and  Wilson — '^5. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Cragin,  Doolittle,  Drake,  Ferry, 
Fessenden,  Frelinghuysen,  Henderson,  Howard,  Morgan,  Nye,  Ramsey,  Saulsbury,  Sher- 
man, Spra^'ue,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  'J'riimbuU,  Van  Winkle,  and  Willey — 25. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Bayard,  Harlan,  Wade,  and  Yates — 4. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  25,  and  the  nays  are  25. 
The  Chief  Justice  votes  in  the  affirmative.  The  Senate  will  retire  for  confer- 
ence. 

The  Senate,  with  the  Chief  Justice,  thereupon  (at  seven  minutes  before  3 
o'clock)  retired  to  their  conference  I'oom  for  consultation. 

The  Senate  having  retired, 

Mr.  Sherman  submitted  the  following  order  : 

Ordered,  That  under  the  rules,  and  in  accordance  with  the  precedents  in  the  United  States 
in  cases  of  impeachment,  all  questions  other  than  those  of  order  should  be  submitted  to  the 
Senate. 

After  debate, 

Mr.  Henderson  moved  to  postpone  the  present  question  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  up  for  consideration  the  seventh  rule,  that  he  might  propose  an  amend- 
ment thereto. 

Mr.  CoNNfiss  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  this  motion,  and  they  were 
ordered;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  32,  nays  18 ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Cole,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Henderson,  Hen- 
dricks, Johnson,  MeCreery,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pat- 
terson of  Tennessee,  Pomeroy,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Sprague,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers, 
Willey,  and  Williams— 3-2. 

Nays. — Messrs.  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conness,  Drake,  Ferry,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan, 
Momll  of  Maine,  Morton,  Nye,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  and 
Wilson — 18. 

Not  voting— Messrs.  Grimes,  Harlan,  Wade,  and  Yates— 4. 

So  the  motion  to  postpone  was  agreed  to. 
Mr.  Henderson  submitted  the  following  resolution  : 
Resolved,  That  rule  seven  be  amended  by  substituting  therefor  the  following : 
The  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  shall  direct  all  necessary  preparations  in  the  Senate 
chamber,  and  the  presiding  officer  of  the  trial  shall  direct  all  the  forms  of  proceeding  while 
the  Senate  are  sitting  for  the  purpose  of  trying  au  impeachment,  and  all  forms  during  the 
trial  not  otherwise  specially  provided  for.     And  the  presiding  officer  of  the  trial  may  rule  all 
questions  of  evidence  and  incidental  questions,  which  ruling  shall  stand  as  the  judgment  of 
the  Senate,  unless  some  member  of  the  Senate  shall  ask  that  a  formal  vote  be  taken  thereon, 
in  which  case  it  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  decision  ;  or  he  may,  at  his  option,  in 
the  first  instance  submit  any  such  question  to  a  vote  of  the  members  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Morrill,  of  Maine,  moved  to  amend  the  proposed  rule  by  striking  out 
the  words  "  which  ruling  shall  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  Senate." 

After  debate. 

The  amendment  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Su.MxXBR  moved,  to  amend  the  resolution  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word 
"  Resolved,"  and  inserting  : 

That  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States,  presiding  in  the  Senate  on  the  trial  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  is  not  a  member  of  the  Senate,  and  has  no  authority,  under 
the  Constitution,  to  vote  on  any  question  during  the  trial,  and  he  can  pronounce  decision 
only  as  the  organ  of  the  Senate,  with  its  assent. 

After  debate, 

Mr.  Sumner  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  his  amendment,  and  they  were 
ordered ;  and  being  taken  resulted — yeas  22,  nays  26 ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Drake, 


186  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

Howard,  Morpan,  Monill  of  Maine,  Morton,  Nje,  Pomcroy,  Eamsey,  Stewart,  Sumner, 
Thayer,  Tiptou,  Trumbull,  Williams,  and  Wilson — 2*2. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cole,  Davis,  Dixon.  Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fes- 
senden.  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Howe,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill 
of  Vermont,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Koss,  Sherman, 
Sprague,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — 2G. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Anthony,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Saulsbury,  "Wade,  and  Yates — 6. 

So  the  amendment  of  Mi*.  Sumner  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Drake  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word 
"  that"  and  inserting  : 

It  is  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  that  under  the  Constitution  the  Chief  Justice  presiding 
over  the  Senate  in  the  pending  trial  has  no  privilege  of  ruling  questions  of  law  arising  thereon, 
but  that  all  such  questions  should  be  submitted  to  a  decision  by  the  Senate  alone. 

After  debate, 

Mr,  Drake  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered ;  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  20,  nays  30 ;  as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Drake,  Ferry, 
Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morton,  Nye,  Eamsey,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer, 
Tipton,  and  Wilson — 20. 

Nays — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle, 
Edmiuids,  Fesseuden,  Fowler,  Freliughuysen,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshi  re,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Pome- 
roy,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  and 
Williams— 30. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Grimes,  Harlan,  Wade,  and  Yates — 4. 

So  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

The  question  recurring  on  the  rule  proposed  by  Mr.  Henderson,  after  debate, 
Mr,  Ferry  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered  ;  and  being 
taken,  resulted  in — yeas  31,  nays  19;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Davis,  Dixon, 
Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Freliughuysen,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson, 
McCreery,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennes- 
see, Pomeroy,  Eoss,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey, 
and  Williams — 31. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Drake,  Ferry,  Howard, 
Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morton,  Nye,  Ramsey,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tiptou, 
and  Wilson — 19. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Grimes,  Harlan,  Wade,  and  Yates — 4. 

So  the  resolution  submitted  by  Mr.  Henderson  was  agreed  to. 
Mr.  Sumner  submitted  the  following  resolution: 

Eesolved,  That  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  presiding  in  the  Senate  on  the  trial 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  member  of  the  Senate,  and  has  no  authority 
under  the  Constitution  to  vote  on  any  question  during  the  trial. 

Mr.  Hendricks  objected  to  the  reception  of  the  proposition,  as  it  did  not 
relate  to  the  matter  on  which  the  Senate  had  retired  to  confer;  and  he  moved 
that  the  Senate  return  to  the  Senate  chamber ;  Avliich  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Senate  returned  to  its  chamber  at  eighteen  minutes  past  6  o'clock  p.  m. 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  Senate  has  had  under  consideration  the  question 
before  it  when  it  retired,  and  has  directed  me  to  report  the  rule  adopted,  which 
will  be  read  by  the  Secretary. 

The  Secretary.  The  seventh  rule,  as  now  amended,  roads: 

The  presiding  ofiicer  of  the  Senate  shall  direct  all  necessary  preparations  in  the  Senate 
chamber,  and  the  presiding  officer  of  tlie  tiial  shall  direct  all  the  toriiis  of  ])roceeding  while 
the  Senate  are  sitting  for  the  piu-jiosc  of  trying  an  impeaclmicut,  and  all  lornis  during  the 
trial  not  otherwise  specially  jjrovided  for.  And  the  j)resi(ling  otlicer  of  the  trial  may  rule  all 
questions  of  evidence  and  Incidental  (piestions,  wiiich  ruling  shall  stand  as  the  judgment  of 
the  Senate,  unless  some  member  of  the  Senate  shall  ask  that  a  formal  vote  be  taken  thereon  ; 
in  which  case  it  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  ftir  decision,  or  he  may,  at  his  option,  iu 
the  first  instance  submit  any  such  question  to  a  vote  of  the  members  of  the  Senate. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.         _  187 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen,  managers  on  tlie  part  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, you  will  please  state  your  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butleu.  Will  you  spare  us  a  moment  for  consultation  ?  The 
chairman  of  the  managers  is  out. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  Mr.  President,  unless  the  managers  desire  that  we  should 
continue  now  in  session  to  take  immediate  action.  I  would  propose  that  the 
Senate  adjourn  until  half-past  12  o'clock  to-morrow. 

Mr.  Ferry  and  others.     The  rules  fix  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  Very  well;  until  12  o'clock.  If  the  managers  desire  to 
suhmit  any  particular  action  at  this  moment  I  will  withdraw  the  motion  ;  if  not, 
I  insist  upon  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  move,  first,  that  the  rules,  as  amended,  be  printed  for  the 
use  of  the  Senate. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Oregon  moves  that  the  rules,  as 
amended,  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Senate. 

The  question  being  put,  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  I  now  renew  my  motion  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court 
of  impeachment,  adjourn. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  nothing  to  oppose  to  the  motion. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Have  the  counsel  for  the  President  anything  to  propose  1 

Messrs.  Stanbery  and  Evarts  indicated  that  they  had  not. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  moved  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeach- 
ment, adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Chief  Justice  declared  the  Senate,  sitting 
as  a  court  of  impeachment,  adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 


Wednesday,  April  1,  1S6S. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at  five 
minutes  past  12  o'clock  and  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeaut-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  also  appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  with  Mr.  E.  B.  Wash- 
burne,  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  accompanied  by  the  Speaker  and  Clerk, 
and  they  were  conducted  to  the  seats  provided  for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  minutes  of  the  last  day's 
proceedings. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  yesterday 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 

Mr.  Sumner.  Mr.  President,  I  send  to  the  Chair  an  order  which  is  in  the 
nature  of  a  correction  of  the  journal. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order  proposed. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

It  appearing  from  the  reading  of  the  journal  of  yesterday  that  on  a  question  where  the 
Senate  were  equally  divided  the  Chief  Justice,  presiding  on  the  trial  of  the  I'residont,  gave 
a  casting  vote,  it  is  hereby  declared  that,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Senate,  such  vote  was 
without  authority  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Sumner.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  21,  nays 
27  ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas— Messrs.  Cameron,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Connoss,  Cragin,  Drake,  Howard, 
Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morton,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer, 
Tipton,  Trumbull,  Williams,  and  Wilson— 21. 


188  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

Nats — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Biickalew,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Edmunds, 
Ferry,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelincrbuysen, Grimes, Henderson,  Hendricks.  Johnson, McCreery, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton.  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Koss, 
Sherman,  Sprague,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — 27. 

Not  Voting— Messrs.  Cattell,  Harlan,  Nye,  Saulsbury,  Wade,  and  Yates— 6. 

So  tlio  proposed  order  was  rejected. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  during  the  proceedings  yesterday  a  question 
was  submitted  by  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  impeachment  in  relation  to 
evidence,  and  that  question  was  objected  to  by  the  counsel  for  the  President. 
The  managers  will  now  please  to  submit  that  question  in  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler  presented  the  question  in  writing  at  the  Secretary's  desk. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  the  following  question  proposed  to  be  put  to  the  witness, 
Walter  A.  Burleigh  : 

"You  said  yesterday,  in  answer  to  my  question,  that  you  bad  a  conversation  with  Gen- 
eral Lorenzo  Thomas  on  the  evening  of  the  '21  st  of  February  last.  State  if  he  said  anything 
as  to  the  means  by  wliich  he  intended  to  obtain,  or  was  directed  by  the  President  .to  obtain, 
possession  of  the  War  Department  ?     If  so,  state  all  he  said  as  nearly  as  you  can.'" 

Mr.  Staxbery.  We  object,  Mr.  Chief  Justice. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  you  desire  to  make  any  observations  to  the  court. 
Mr,  Stanbery.  We  do,  sir. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  will  be  submitted  to  the  Senate. 
Mr.  Howard.  What  is  the  question  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  again. 
The  Secretary  again  read  the  question. 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen.  Mr  President,  I  desire  to  submit  a  question. 
The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  submitted  by  the 
senator  from  New  Jersey  [Mr.  FrelinghuysenJ  to  the  managers. 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Do  the  managers  intend  to  connect  the  conversation  between  the  witness  and  General 
Thomas  with  the  respondent  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Are  the  managers  prepared  to  reply  to  the  question? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  if  the  point  is  to  be  argued,  with  the 
leave  of  the  Senate  we  will  endeavor  to  answer  that  question  in  the  argument. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  to  be  argued.  The  manager  will  proceed,  if  he 
desires. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  do  not  hear  the  answer. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  answer  is,  Mr.  President,  if  you  will  allow  me  to 
repeat  it,  that,  as  I  understand,  the  point  raised  is  to  be  argued  on  the  one  side 
and  the  other,  we  will  endeavor  to  answer  the  question  submitted  by  the  senator 
from  New  Jersey,  in  the  course  of  our  argument. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  hear  the  question  road  again, 
as  I  think  the  answer  to  the  inquiry  of  the  senator  from  New  Jersey  is  in  the 
question  propounded  by  the  managers,  as  I  heard  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  again.  Senators 
will  please  give  their  attention. 

The  Secretary  again  read  the  question  of  Mr.  Manager  Butler. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  managers  i)ropose  to  answer  the  question  of  the 
senator  from  New  Jersey? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  If  there  is  to  be  no  argument,  Mr.  I'rosident,  I  will 
answer  the  question  proposed.  If  there  is  to  be  an  argument  on  the  part  of  the 
counsel  for  the  President,  we  propose,  as  a  more  convenient  method,  to  answer 
the  question  in  the  course  of  our  argument,  because  otherwise  we  might  have  to 
make  an  argument  now.  I  can  say  that  we  do  propose  to  connect  the  respond- 
ent with  til  is  testimony. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  189 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Is  it  in  order  now,  Mr.  Cliief  Justice,  for  us  to  argue  the 
question  1 

The  Chi KF  Justice.  If  the  counsel  desire  to  submit  any  observations  to  the 
Senate,  they  may  do  so. 

Mr.  Stanbkry.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators,  we  have  at  length  reached 
the  domain  of  law  ;  we  ai-e  no  longer  to  argue  questions  of  mere  form  or  modes 
of  procedure,  but  have  come  at  last  to  a  distinct  legal  question,  proper  to  be 
argued  by  lawyers  and  to  be  considered  by  lawyers. 

The  question  now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators,  is,  whether  any  foundation 
is  laid,  either  in  the  articles  or  in  any  testimony  yet  given,  Avhy  the  declarations 
of  General  Thomas  should  be  used  in  evidence  against  the  President.  General 
Thomas  is  not  on  trial ;  it  is  the  President,  the  President  alone,  and  the  testi- 
mony to  be  offered  must  be  testimony  that  is  binding  upon  him  or  admissible 
against  him. 

It  is  agreed  that  the  President  was  not  present  on  the  evening  of  the  21st  of 
February,  when  General  Thomas  made  these  declarations.  They  were  made 
in  his  absence.  He  had  no  opportunity  of  hearing  them  or  contradicting  them. 
If  they  are  to  be  used  against  him,  it  is  because  they  were  uttered  by  some  one 
speaking  for  him,  wbo  was  authorized  by  him  to  make  these  declarations  of  his 
intentions  and  his  purposes. 

Now,  first  of  all,  what  foundation  is  laid  why  the  declarations  of  General 
Thomas  as  to  what  he  intended  to  do,  or  what  the  President  bad  authorized 
him  to  do,  should  be  given  in  evidence  against  the  President  ?  It  will  be  seen 
that  by  the  first  article  the  offence  charged  against  the  President  is,  that  he 
issued  a  certain  order  to  Mr.  Stanton  for  his  removal ;  ordering  his  removal,  and 
adding  that  General  Thomas  was  authorized  to  receive  from  him  a  transfer  of 
the  books,  papers,  records,  and  property  in  the  department.  Now,  the  offence 
laid  in  that  article  is  not  as  to  anything  that  was  done  under  it,  but  simply  that 
in  itself  the  mere  issuing  of  that  order  is  the  gravamen  of  the  offence  charged. 
So  much  for  the  first  article. 

What  is  the  second?  That  on  the  same  day,  the  ^Ist  of  February,  1868, 
the  President  issued  a  letter  of  authority  to  General  Thomas,  and  the  gravamen 
there  is  the  issuing  of  that  letter  of  authority,  not  anything  done  under  it. 

What  next?  The  third  article  goes  upon  the  same  letter  of  authority,  and 
charges  the  issuing  of  it  to  be  an  offence  with  intention  to  violate  a  certain 
statute. 

Then  we  come  to  the  fourth  article,  which  charges  a  conspiracy.  Senators 
will  observe  that  in  the  three  first  articles  the  offence  charged  is  issuing  certain 
orders,  nothing  beyond,  as  in  violation  either  of  the  Constitution  or  of  the 
act  called  the  tenuie-of-ofiice  act.  But  by  the  fourth  article  the  managers  pro- 
ceed to  charge  us  with  an  entirely  new  offence  against  a  totally  different  statute, 
and  that  is  a  conspiracy  between  General  Thomas  and  the  President,  and  other 
persons  imknown,  by  "force"  in  one  article,  "by  intimidation  and  threats"  in 
another,  to  hinder  and  prevent  Mr.  Stanton  from  holding  the  office  of  Secretary 
of  War,  and  that  in  pursuance  of  that  conspiracy  certain  acts  were  done  which 
are  not  named,  with  intent  to  violate  the  conspiracy  act  of  July,  1861. 

These  are  the  only  charges  that  have  any  relevancy  to  the  question  which  is 
now  put.  I  need  not  refer  to  the  other  articles,  in  which  offences  are  charged 
against  the  President,  arising  out  of  his  declarations  to  General  Emory,  the 
speeches  made,  one  at  the  Executive  Mansion  in  August,  1866,  another" at 
Cleveland  on  the  3d  day  of  September,  1866,  and  another  at  St.  Louis  on  the 
Sth  of  September,  1866.     For  the  present  they  are  out  of  the  way. 

Now,  what  proof  has  yet  been  made  under  the  first  eight  articles  ?  The 
proof  is  simply,  so  far  as  this  question  is  concerned,  the  production  in  evidence 
of  the  orders  themselves.  There  they  are  to  speak  for  themselves.  As  yet  we 
have  not  had  one  particle  of  proof  of  what  was  said  by  the  President,  either 


190  IMPEACHMENr    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

before  or  after  lie  gave  those  orders,  or  at  tlie  time  lie  gave  those  orders — not 
one  word.  The  only  foundation  now  laid  for  the  introduction  of  this  testimony 
is  the  production  of  the  orders  themselves.  The  attempt  made  here  is,  by  the 
declarations  of  General  Tliomas,  to  show  with  what  intent  the  President  issued 
those  orders;  not  by  producing  him  here  to  testify  what  the  President  told 
him,  but,  without  having  him  sworn  at  all,  to  bind  the  President  by  his  decla- 
rations not  made  under  oath  ;  made  without  the  possibility  of  cross-examination 
or  contradiction  by  the  President  himself;  made  as  though  they  are  made  by 
the  authority  of  the  President. 

Now,  senators,  wiiat  foundation  is  laid  to  show  such  authority,  given  by  the 
President  to  General  Thomas,  to  speak  for  him  as  to  his  intent,  or  even  as  to 
General  Thomas's  intent,  which  is  quite  another  question.  You  must  find  the 
foundation  in  the  orders  themselves,  for  as  yet  you  have  no  other  place  to  look 
for  it.  Now,  what  are  these  orders  ?  That  issued  to  General  Thomas  is  the 
most  material  one  ;  but,  that  I  may  take  the  whole,  I  will  read  also  that  issued 
and  directed  to  Mr.  Stanton  himself.  He  says  to  Mr.  Stanton,  by  his  order  of 
Pebruary  21,  1SG8  : 

Sir:  By  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  me  as  President  by  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  you  are  hereby  removed  from  office  as  Secretary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War,  and  your  functions  as  such  will  terminate  upon  receipt  of  this  communication. 

You  will  transfer  to  Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  General  of  the  army, 
who  has  this  day  been  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  all 
records,  books,  papers,  and  other  public  property  now  in  your  custody  and  charge. 

So  much  for  that.     Then  the  order  to  General  Thomas  for  the  same  day  is  : 

Sir  :  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  removed  from  office  as  Secretary  for 

the  Department  of  War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of 

War  ad  interim,  and  wiUiuunediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to 

that  office. 

Mr.  Stanton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other 
public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 
Kespecfefully,  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
To  Brevet  Major  General  LoREXZO  Thomas, 

Adjutant  General  United  States  Army,  Washington,  D.  C. 

There  they  are;  they  speak  for  tliemselves;  orders  made  by  the  President  to 
two  of  his  subordinates;  an  order  directing  one  of  them  to  vacate  his  office  and 
to  transfer  the  books  and  public  property  in  his  possession  to  another  party,  and 
the  order  to  that  other  party  to  take  possession  of  the  office,  receive  a  transfer  of 
the  books,  and  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim.  Gentlemen,  does  that  make 
them  conspirators  1  Is  that  proof  of  a  conspiracy  or  tending  to  have  a  con- 
spiracy ?  Does  that  make  General  Thomas  an  agent  of  the  President  in  such 
a  sense  as  that  tlie  President  is  to  be  bound  by  everything  he  says  and  every- 
thing he  does,  even,  within  the  scope  of  his  agency  ?  If  it  makes  him  his  agent, 
does  tliis  letter  of  authority,  this  written  authority,  authorize  him  to  do  anything 
but  that  which  he  is  commanded  to  do — go  there  and  demand  possession,  go 
there  and  receiv^^  a  transfer  from  the  person  1  Does  it  authori/.e  him  to  use 
force?  Does  it  authorize  him  to  go  beyond  tho  letter  and  the  meaning  of  the 
authority  which  is  given  him?     Not  at  all. 

Now,  in  the  iirst  phiee,  it  must  be  either  on  the  footing  of  a  conspiracy 
between  General  Tiiomas  and  the  President  or  \\\)m\  tlie  footing  of  a  direct 
agency,  in  which  the  President  is  the  principal  and  General  Thomas  is  the 
agent,  that  the  declarations  of  General  Thomas,  either  as  co-conspirator  or  as 
agent  of  a  principal,  acting  within  his  authority,  are  to  be  admitted  in  evidence. 
I  do  not  know  any  otlier  ground  upon  which  the  learned  managers  can  place 
the  admissibility  of  this  hearsay  declaration,  not  under  oath,  by  a  party  not  on 
the  record. 

I  agree  that  when  a  proper  foundation  is  laid  by  proof  of  a  conspiracy  in 
which  A,  B,  and  C  are  concerned,  then  the  declarations  of  any  one  of  the  cou- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  191 

epirators,  mcade  while  the  conspiracy  is  in  process,  made,  too,  in  furtherance  of 
the  conspiracy,  not  outside  of  it,  not  in  reference  to  any  other  unlawful  act,  but 
in  reference  to  the  very  unlawful  act  agreed  upon,  may  be  admitted.  I  concede" 
that,  mider  these  circumstances,  the  declaration  of  any  one  conspirator  binds 
all  his  fellows,  although,  made  in  their  absence.  So,  too,  I  agree,  senators,  that 
when  an  agency  is  established,  either  by  pand  proof  or  by  writing — and  when 
establi.«hed  by  writing  that  is  the  measure  of  the  agency,  and  you  cannot  extend 
it  by  parol  proof — when  an  agency  is  constituted  either  by  parol  proof  or  by 
writing  to  do  a  certain  thing,  the  acts,  and,  imder  certain  circumstanced,  the 
declarations  of  the  agent,  made  in  performance  of  that  authority,  not  outside  of 
it,  but  in  performance  of  it,  bind  the  principal. 

Now,  1  ask  this  honorable  court  where  is  there  any  evidence  yet  establishing 
anything  like  a  conspiracy  between  the  President  and  General  Thomas  ? 
Where  is  there  any  proof  yet  establishing  any  agency  between  General  Thomas 
and  the  President,  in  which  the  President  was  principal  and  General  Thomas 
the  agent,  save  this  letter  of  authority  1  I  do  not  admit  that  this  letter  of 
authority  constitutes  the  relation  of  principal  and  agent  at  all.  I  do  not  admit 
that  the  President  is  to  be  bound  by  any  declarations  made  by  General  Thomas 
on  the  footing  that  he  is  agent  of  tlie  President;  but  if  he  were,  if  this  were  a 
case  strictly  of  princi{)al  and  agent,  then  I  say  this  letter  of  authority  gives  no 
authority  to  General  Thomas  to  bind  his  principal  beyond  the  express  authority 
so  given. 

The  object  of  this  proof,  as  we  are  told  by  the  learned  manager,  is  to  show 
that  General  Thomas  declared  that  it  was  his  intention  and  the  intention  of  the 
President,  in  executing  that  authority,  to  U'^e  force,  intimidation,  and  threats. 
Does  the  authority  authorize  anything  of  that  sort,  even  if  it  were  a  case  of 
principal  and  agent  ?  Suppose  a  principal  gives  authority  to  his  agent  to  go 
and  take  possession  of  a  house  of  his  in  the  occupation  of  a  tenant,  and  to  receive 
from  that  tenant  the  delivery  of  the  house,  does  it  authorize  the  agent  to  go 
there  manuforti  to  commit  an  assault  and  battery  upon  the  tenant,  to  drive  him 
out  vi  et  arm'is,  or  even  scarcely  to  use  the  molUter  manus  1  I  submit  not.  Is 
the  principal  to  be  made  a  criminal  by  the  act  of  his  agent  acting  simply  under 
an  authority  which  purports  only  to  give  a  right  of  peaceable  possession  and 
of  surrender  by  the  consent  of  the  party  in  possession]  Is  the  principal  to  be 
bound  by  any  excess  of  authority  used  by  his  agent  in  executing  it;  or  is  he, 
when  the  authority  is  in  writing  and  does  not  authorize  force,  to  be  bound 
by  the  declarations  of  the  agent  that  force  will  be  used?  Which  of  us  would 
ever  be  safe  in  giving  any  authority  to  an  a^ent  if  we  are  to  be  submitted  to 
consequences  like  these  % 

But,  senators,  this  is  not  a  question  of  principal  and  agent.  What,  I  pray 
you,  has  the  President  done  that  he  is  held  to  be  a  conspirator  or  as  a  principal 
giving  unlawful  authority  to  an  agent  ?  Does  the  President  appoint  General 
Thomas  his  agent  in  any  individu;d  capacity  to  take  possession  of  an  office  that 
belonged  to  him,  or  of  books  and  papers  that  were  his  property  ?  Not  at  all. 
What  is  the  nature  of  this  order  ?  It  is,  according  to  the  accustomed  formula, 
the  designation  of  an  officer,  an  officer  already  known  to  the  law,  to  do  what  ? 
To  exercise  a  public  duty,  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  public  office.  Is  the  per- 
son thus  appointed  by  the  President  his  agent  %  When  he  accepts  his  appoint- 
ment does  he  act  only  under  the  instructions  of  the  principal,  and  is  he  the 
agent  of  the  principal  to  carry  out  a  private  purpose  or  to  perform  a  piivate 
duty]  Certainly  not.  He  at  once  becomes  an  officer  of  the  law,  with  liabili- 
ties himself  as  a  public  officer,  liable  to  removal,  liable  to  impeachment,  liable  to 
indictment  and  prosecution  for  anything  which  he  may  do  in  violation  of  his 
duties  as  a  public  officer. 

Are  all  the  officers  of  the  United  States  who  have  been  appointed  just  in  this 
way  the  agents  of  the  President  ?     When  the  President  gives  a  commission, 


192  IMPEACHMENT   OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

either  a  permanent  one  or  a  temporary  one,  "to  fill  a  vacancy  or  to  fill  au  office 
during  a  disability,  are  the  persons  so  designated  and  appointed  his  agents,  and 
is  he  bound  by  everything  they  do  1  If  they  take  a  bribe,  is  it  a  bribe  to  him? 
If  they  commit  an  assault  and  battery,  is  it  an  assault  and  battery  committed 
by  him  ?  If  they  exceed  their  authority,  does  he  become  liable  1  Not  at  all. 
If  third  persons  are  injured  by  them  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  which  he  has 
given,  may  those  third  persons  go  back  upon  the  President  as  the  responsible 
party  under  the  principle  respondeat  superior  ? 

There  is  no  idea  of  principal  and  agent  here ;  it  is  the  case  of  one  public 
officer  giving  orders  to  another  public  officer.  He.  clothes  him,  not  with  his 
authority,  but  with  the  authority  of  the  law,  and  the  public  officer  so  appointed 
stands  under  an  obligation  of  oath,  not  to  the  principal,  not  to  the  President,  but 
to  the  law  itself;  and  if  he  does  any  act  which  injures  a  third  person,  or  which 
violates  any  law,  it  is  he  that  is  responsible,  not  the  President  who  has  appointed 
bim. 

Senators,  it  seems  to  us  that  these  conclusions  are  inevitable.  I  shall  scarcely 
trouble  this  honorable  court,  made  up  so  largely  of  lawyers  of  the  greatest  emi- 
nence, with  the  citation  of  authorities  upon  a  point  so  clear  as  this.  I  under- 
stand the  learned  managers  to  say  that  they  expect  hereafter  to  connect  the 
President  with  these  declarations  of  General  Thomas. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  believe  I  did  not  use  the  word  "hereafter." 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Does  the  learned  manager  say  that  he  has  heretofore  done  it? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  only  say  now  that  I  did  not  say  "hereafter." 

Mr.  Stanbeky.  You  expect  to  do  it,  not  that  you  have  done  it?  I  do  not 
want  to  criticise  the  language  of  the  gentlem.an  nor  to  have  mine  criticised. 
What  I  ixnderstand  the  gentleman  to  say,  in  answer  to  a  questii)n  put  by  a  sen- 
ator, was  that  he  did  expect  to  show  a  connection.  If  he  did  not  mean  that  he 
meant  nothing;  or  he  meant  one  thing  and  said  another.  It  was  to  meet  the 
objection  that  as  yet  you  have  laid  no  foundation  that  the  question  was  put  to 
the  learned  manager  "  do  you  expect  to  lay  a  foundation  ;"  and  the  answer  was 
in  the  affirmative.  Drawn  out  after  one  or  two  repetitions  of  the  question,  the 
honorable  manager  tells  us  they  expect  to  lay  the  foundation.  Is  that  enough 
for  the  introduction  of  evidence  which  prima  facie  is  inadmissible  ?  Is  that 
enough?     It  is  not  enough. 

I  agree  that  there  are  exceptions  in  cases  of  conspiracy,  and,  perhaps,  of 
agency,  to  the  necessity  of  the  introduction  of  preliminary  proof,  laying  the 
foundation  before  witnesses  are  called  to  state  the  declarations  of  a'co-conspirator 
or  of  an  agent.  They  are  extreme  cases,  and  so  put  in  the  books,  but  no  such 
extreme  case  is  shown  here.  But  we  have  heard  no  reason  why  we  must  in  this 
case  reverse  the  order  of  testimony  and  go  into  that  which  is  prima  facie  inad- 
missible under  the  assurance  that  a  foundation  is  hereafter  to  be  laid. 

What  prevents  the  gentleman  from  laying  that  foundation?  What  prevents 
them  from  showing  a  conspiracy  in  the  first  place  ?  Wbat  prevents  tlicni  from 
showing  instructions  outside  of  this  letter  of  authority  to  use  force,  intimidation, 
or  threats  ?  What  reason  is  there  ?  None  whatever  is  stated.  Is  it  a  matter 
merely  at  the  option  of  counsel  in  the  introduction  of  testimony  to  begin  at  the 
wrong  end,  to  introduce  what  is  clearly  inadniis>'ible  without  a  foundation,  and 
to  say  "We  will  give  you  the  superstructure  first  and  the  foundation  last?" 
Does  that  lie  merely  in  the  option  of  counsel  ?  AVas  such  a  thing  as  that  ever 
heard?  None  have  ever  heard  it;  and  I  say,  and  such  are  the  authorities,  that 
it  must  be  an  extreme  case,  founded  upon  direct  assurance  upon  the  professional 
honor  of  counsel,  before  a  court  will  allow  testimony  prima  facie  inadmissible 
to  be  admitted  under  the  statement  that  hereafter  a  propijr  foundation  will  be 
laid. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  I  must  ask  that  the  usual  rule  shall  be 
enforced  here ;  that  if  any  authorities  are  to  be  cited  by  the  counsel   for  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  193 

President  they  must  be  cited  in  their  opening,  so  that  we  can  have  opportunity 
to  reply  to  them,  and  not  after  I  have  replied  have  authorities  cited.  If  there 
are  none  I  will  go  on. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Such  is  the  undoubted  rule. 

Mr.  STA\nER\.  I  think,  l\rr.  Chief  Justice,  I  will  allow  this  question  to  stand 
without  the  production  of  authorities. 

Mr.  ^lanager  BuTLKR.  Mr.  Piesident  and  Senators,  the  gravity  of  the  ques- 
tion presented,  being  more  than  the  mere  decision  of  a  given  interrogatory,  has 
induced  the  President's  colmsel  to  argue  it  at  length,  they  seeing  that  largely 
upon  this  question  and  the  testimony  adduced  under  it  npon  one  of  the  articles 
of  this  impeachment  the  fate  of  their  client  may  depend.  It  is  a  grave  ques- 
tion, and  therefore  I  must  ask  the  attention  of  the  Senate  and  the  presiding 
officer,  as  well  as  I  may,  to  some  considerations  which  determine  it  in  my  mind. 
But  before  I  do  so  I  pray  leave  to  sketch  the  exact  status  of  the  case  up  to 
the  point  at  which  the  question  is  produced  ;  and  I  may  say — I  trust  without 
offence — that  the  learned  counsel  for  the  President  has  entirely  ignored  that 
status.  I  take  for  the  evidence  of  it  the  propositions  put  forward  in  the  answer 
of  the  President,  the  papers  that  have  been  already  adduced,  and  the  testimony, 
so  far  as  we  have  gone.  It  appears,  then,  that  on  or  about  the  12th  day  of 
Auguet  last  past,  possibly  before  the  President  conceived  the  idea  of  removing 
Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  office  at  all  hazards,  claiming  the  power  and  right  to 
do  so  against  the  provisions  of  the  act  known  as  the  tenure-of-civil-office  act,  he 
undertook  to  suspend  him  under  that  act.  Therefore,  the  decision  of  this  ques- 
tion, in  one  of  its  aspects,  will  decide  the  great  question  here  at  issue  this  hour. 
Is  that  act,  up  to  this  time,  to  be  treated  as  a  law  of  the  land,  as  an  act  of  Con- 
gress valid  and  not  to  be  infringed  by  any  executive  officer  whatever  ?  Because, 
if  it  is  a  law,  then  the  President  admits  that  he  undertook  to  remove  Mr.  Stan- 
ton in  violation  of  that  law,  and  that  he  issued  the  order  to  General  Thomas  for 
that  purpose,  and  only  to  violate  it;  and  his  palliation  is,  that  he  meant  to  make 
a  case  for  judicial  decision;  but  to  do  so,  he  intended  to  issue  the  order  to  Mr. 
Thomas,  and  Thomas  was,  under  it,  to  act  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  that 
act.     Am  I  not  right  upon  this  proposition? 

That  being  so,  then  we  have  him,  on  his  part,  intending  to  violate  the  law; 
we  have  him,  then,  issuing  an  order  in  violation  of  the  law;  we  have  him,  then, 
calling  to  his  aid,  to  carry  out  the  violation  of  that  law,  an  officer  of  the  army. 
Now,  in  the  light  of  that  position,,  what  is  the  next  thing  we  find?  We 
find  that  he  issues  an  order  to  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  take  possession  of  the  War 
Department.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  President  says  that  that  is  an  order 
in  the  usual  form.  I  take  issue  with  him.  There  are  certain  ear-marks  about 
that  order  which  show  that  it  was  not  in  the  usual  form.  It  has  in  it  words  of 
imperative  command.  It  is  not  simply,  "  you  are  authorized  and  empowered  to 
take  possession  of  the  War  Department;  but  it  is  "yon  will  immediately" — 
all  other  things  being  laid  aside,  at  once,  whatever  may  oppose — "  you  will 
immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  that  office." 

Now,  Ave  must  take  another  thing  which  appears  in  this  case  beyond  all  pos- 
sibility of  cavil,  and  that  is,  that  the  President  knew  at  that  time  that  Mr.  Stan- 
ton from  the  first,  to  wit,  on  the  12th  of  August  last,  claimed  the  right  not  to 
be  put  out  of  that  office,  and  when  he  went  out  he  notified  the  President 
solemnly  that  he  only  went  out  in  obedience  to  superior  force.  To  get  him  out, 
the  Pi-esident  authorized  to  take  possession  the  General  of  the  army  of  the 
United  States  ;  and  that,  for  all  legal  purposes  and  for  all  actual  purposes,  was 
equivalent  to  using  the  force  of  the  whole  army  of  the  United  Slates  to  take 
possession  of  that  office,  because  it"  the  General  of  the  army  thought  that  the 
order  was  legal,  he,  obeying  the  orders  of  his  superi  ir,  when  he  was  ordered 
to  take  possession  by  force,  had  a  right  to  use  the  whole  army  of  the  United 
States  to  enforce  the  President's  order.  Therefore,  the  President  was  notified 
13  I  P 


194  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

that  Mr.  Stanton  only  yielded  bis  office  at  first  to  i^uperior  force  ;  and  so  he  did 
wisely  and  patriotically,  becaxiscif  he  had  not  yielded,  a  collision  might  have 
been  brought  •which  would  have  raised  a  civil  war,  which,  in  the  language  of  the 
late  rebels  and  General  Thomas,  is  an  "  onpleasantuess"  between  loyal  and 
rebel  men. 

The  President  knew  that  Mr.  Stanton  at  first  said,  "  I  will  oiil)'-  yield  this 
office  to  superjor  force."  Then  Mr.  Stanton  having  thus  yielded  it,  the  General 
of  the  army  took  possession,  and  on  the  action  of  the  Senate  the  General 
vacated  it  in  obedience  to  the  high  behest  of  the  8»[?nate,  and  Mr.  Stanton  was 
reinstated  in  it  in  obedience  to  the  high  behest  of  the  Senate,  and  being  there 
he  was  still  more  fortified  in  his  position  than  at  first.  If  he  would  not  yield 
it  except  to  superior  force  on  the  12th  of  August,  1867,  do  you  believe,  sena- 
tors, is  any  man  so  besotted  as  to  believe  that  the  President  did  not  know  that 
Mr.  Stanton,  so  reinstated,  so  fortified,  meant  to  hold  the  office  against  every- 
thing but  force "?  The  President  had  been  notified  that  Stanton  yielded  only 
to  the  General  of  the  army  ;  wielding  superior  force,  he  had  seen  Stanton  put 
back  by  the  high  authority  of  the  Senate  ;  he  had  seen  Stanton  sustained  by  a 
vote  of  the  Senate,  declaring  that  the  attempt  to  remove  him  was  illegal  and 
unconstitutional;  and  then,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  this  to  an  issue,  the 
President  of  the  United  States  issued  his  order  to  General  Thomas,  another 
officer  of  the  army,  "  You  will  immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the 
duties  of  the  War  Office."  What  then  ?  He  had  come  to  the  conclusion  to 
violate  the  law  and  take  possession  of  the  War  Office ;  he  had  come  to  the 
conclusion  to  do  that  against  the  law  and  in  violation  of  the  law  ;  he  had  sent 
for  Thomas,  and  Thomas  had  agreed  with  him  to  do  that  by  some  means  if  the 
President  would  give  him  the  order,  and  thus  we  have  the  agreement  between 
two  minds  to  do  an  unlawful  act ;  and  that,  I  believe,  is  the  definition  of  a 
conspiracy  all  over  the  Avorld. 

Let  me  restate  this.  You  have  the  determination  on  the  part  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  do  what  had  been  declared  to  be,  and  is,  an  unlawful  act ;  you  have 
Thomas  consenting;  and  you  have  therefore  an  agreement  of  two  minds  to  do 
an  unlawful  act ;  and  that  makes  a  conspiracy,  so  far  as  I  understand  the  law 
of  conspiracy.  So  that  upon  that  conspiracy  we  should  rest  tliis  evidence 
under  article  seven,  which  alleges  that — 

Andrew  Johnson        »  *  #  *        ,jij   unlawfully  conspire  with  one  Lorenzo 

Thomas,  with  intent  unlawfully  to  seize,  take,  and  possess  the  property  of  the  United  States 
in  the  Department  of  War  in  the  custody  and  charge  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton. 

And  also  under  article  five,  which  alleges  a  like  unlawful  conspiracy  not 
alleging  that  intent. 

Then  there  is  another  ground  upon  which  this  evidence  is  admissible,  and 
that  is  upon  the  ground  of  principal  and  agent.  Let  us,  if  you  please,  examine 
that  ground  for  a  few  moments.  The  President  claims  by  his  answer  here 
that  every  Secretary,  every  Attorney  General,  every  executive  officer  of 
this  "•overnment  exists  by  his  will,  upon  his  breath  only ;  that  they  are  all 
his  servants  only,  and  are  responsible  to  him  alone,  not  to  the  Senate  or 
Congress,  or  either  branch  of  Congress ;  and  he  may  remove  them  for  such 
cause  as  he  chooses  ;  he  appoints  them  for  such  cause  as  he  chooses ;  and  he 
claims  this  right  to  bo  illimitable  and  uncontrollable,  and  he  says  in  his  message 
to  you  of  December  12,  18G7,  that  if  any  one  of  his  Secretaries  had  said  to  him 
that  he  would  not  agree  with  him  upon  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  act  of  March 
2,  1867,  he  would  have  turned  him  out  at  once.  All  this  had  passed  into  history, 
and  Mr.  Thomas  knew  that  as  well  as  anybody  else.  Now,  then,  what  is  the 
position  and  duties  of  a  Secretary  of  War,  whether  ad  interim  or  permanent  l 
It  is  that  he — 

Shall  perform  and  execute  such  duties  us  shall  from  time  to  time  bo  enjoined  on  or 
inUusted  to  him  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  agreeably  to  the  Constit^ition— 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  195 

Intrusted  to  him  agreeably  to  the  Constitution — 

Relative  to  military  commissions,  or  to  the  land  or  naval  forces,  ships,  or  warlike  stores 
of  the  United  States,  or  such  other  matters  respecting^  military  or  naval  affairs  as  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  shall  assign  to  the  said  department,  *  »  *  *  j^u^ 
that  the  said  principal  officer  shall  conduct  the  business  of  the  said  department  in  such  man- 
ner as  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  from  time  to  time  order  or  instruct. 

Therefore,  his  commission  is  to  do  precisely  as  the  President  desires  him  to 
do  about  anything  that  pertains  to  the  War  Office,  and  he  stands,  then,  as  the 
agent  of  the  principal — to  do  what  1  He  was  authorized  by  the  President  to 
obtain  possession  of  the  War  Office.  Was  he  authorized  to  do  anything  else 
that  we  hear  of  up  to  that  time  ?  No.  He  was  to  obtain  possession  of  the 
office.  Now,  what  do  we  propose  to  show  by  this  evidence  ?  Having  shown 
that  Thomas  was  authorized  to  obtain  possession  of  the  office  ;  having  shown 
that  he  had  agreed  with  the  President  to  obtain  it;  having  put  in  testimony  that 
the  two  stood  together  in  the  pursuit  of  one  common  object,  the  President  want- 
ing Thomas  to  get  in,  and  Thomas  wanting  to  get  in,  and  both  agreeing  and 
concerting  means  together  to  get  in,  the  question  is  whethei',  under  every  rule 
of  law,  we  are  not  permitted  to  show  the  acts  and  declarations,  however  naked 
these  declarations  may  be,  of  either  of  these  two  parties  about  the  common 
object  1  And  the  very  question  presupposes  that  we  are  only  to  ask  the  declar- 
ations of  Thomas  about  the  common  object.  But  the  case  does  not  quite  stop 
here,  because  we  shall  show  that  Thomas  was  then  talking  about  to  execute  the 
common  purpose.  We  asked  Mr.  Burleigh  if  he  was  a  friend  to  General  Thomas  ; 
he  said  yes ;  if  they  were  intimate  ?  yes ;  accustomed  to  visit  backward  and 
forward  ?  yes.  Governor  Moorhead  has  already  told  you  that  Mr.  Burleigh 
was  a  friend  of  the  President.  There  needed  somebody  to  aid  in  this  enter- 
prise ;  some  moral  support  was  wanted  in  this  enterprise ;  and  we  propose  to 
show  that  General  Thomas  was  endeavoring  to  get  one  of  the  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  support  him  in  the  enterprise,  and  was  laying  out 
the  plan,  and  that  he  asked  him  to  go  with  him  the  next  morning  and  aid  him 
in  the  enterprise,  and  be  there  aiding  and  abetting  in  the  enterprise.  Such  is 
the  testimony  we  propose  to  show,  and  that  is  one  way  in  which  we  propose  to 
connect  the  President  with  the  joint  enterprise.  Such  is  the  exact  condition  of 
things. 

Now,  having  shown  a  common  object — whether  a  lawful  or  unlawful  one,  would 
make  no  difference  as  to  this  point ;  but,  as  I  contend,  a  common,  unlawful  object — 
and  having  shown  the  two  parties  agreeing  upon  one  thing,  having  shown  the 
authority  of  one  to  the  other  to  do  an  act,  can  we  not  put  in  the  declarations  of 
both  parties  in  regard  to  that  act?  Do  not  the  acts  of  one  become  the  acts  of 
the  other  1  Take  the  testimony  we  put  in  yesterday.  Why  did  not  my  learned 
friends  object  to  what  Thomas  said  to  Mr.  Stanton  when  he  demanded  the  War 
Office]  ■  The  President  was  not  there.  To  use  the  arguments  of  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  President,  Thomas  was  npt  upon  oath;  he  was  acting  in  the 
President's  absence.  Why  should  we  put  in  the  act  of  Congress  there  yester- 
day ?     It  was  because  he  was  doing  in  relation  to  the  thing  itself. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  That  was  within  the  authority. 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLER.  Ah!  that  was  within  the  authority.  How  was  it 
within  the  authority?  It  was  within  the  authority  because  the  President  had 
commanded  him  to  take  possession.  Now,  then,  I  want  to  show  the  means  by 
which  he  was  to  take  possession.  How  was  that  to  be  done?  Why,  they  say 
(and  only  the  gravity  of  the  occasion  prevents  me  from  believing  it  a  stupendous 
joke)  we  should  show  what  he  said  by  calling  Th«mas.  On  the  trial  of  one 
conspirator  call  the  other  to  show  the  conspiracy  !  Was  that  ever  done  in  any 
court  upon  any  question  whatever,  except  one  conspirator  turns  State's  evidence 
or  king's  evidence,  as  it  is  called?  and  Thomas,  I  believe,  is  not  quite  bad 
enough  to  do  that  yet.     It  was  never  done  by  intelligent  counsel. 


196  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

These,  then,  are  the  fomulations  on  v/hich  we  btand.  Now,  wliat  arc  the 
authorities  for  receiving  these  declarations?  I  hold  in  my  hand  Roscoc's  Crim- 
inal Evidence,  and  I  propose  to  cite  It  upon  this  point:  that  we  are  not  bound  to 
put  in  all  our  evidence  at  once,  and  that,  by  the  very  acts  and  declarations  of 
the  conspirators  themselves,  we  may  prove  the  conspiracy. 

I  read  from  page  390 : 

The  rule,  t^ays  Mr.  Starkie,  that  oni!  mau  is  not  to  he  aft'ecteJ  by  the  acts  and  declaraiions 
of  a  stranger,  rests  on  the  princijiles  of  the  purest  justice — 

"Acts  and  declarations  of  a  stranger,"  yon  will  observe, 
and  althoiifjh  the  courts,  in  cases  of  conspiracy,  have,  out  of  convenience,  and  on  account  of 
the  difficulty  in  otherwise  proving  the  guilt  of  the  parties,  admitted  the  acts  and  declarations 
of  strangers  to  be  given  in  evidence,  in  order  to  establish  the  fact  of  a  conspiracy,  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  this  is  an  inversion  of  the  usual  order,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  and  that 
such  evidence  is,  in  the  result,  material  so  far  only  as  the  assent  of  the  accused  to  what  has 
been  done  by  otliers  is  proved.     (2  Stark.  Ev.,  235,  second  edition.) 

It  lias  since  been  held  that  the  prosecutor  may  either  prove  the  conspiracy  which  renders 
the  acts  of  the  conspirators  admissible  in  evidence,  or  he  may  prove  the  acts  of  difiercnt  per- 
sons, and  thus  prove  the  conspiracy. 

And  we  have  attempted  to  prove  the  conspiracy  in  the  same  way. 
Again,  the  authority  says  : 

Where,  therefore,  a  party  met,  which  was  joined  by  the  prisoner  the  next  day,  it  was  held, 
that  directions  given  by  one  of  the  party  on  the  day  of  their  meeting,  as  to  where  they  were 
to  go,  and  for  what  purpose,  were  admissible,  and  the  case  was  said  to  fall  within  liex  vs. 
Hunt,  3  13.,  and  Aid.,  5G6,  where  evidence  of  drilling  at  a  different  place  two  days  before, 
avd  hissing  an  obnoxious  person,  was  held  receivable. 

The  answer  of  the  learned  counsel  to  the  authority  Vv-ould  be  to  say,  "  those 
were  acts."  I  agree;  but  declarations  simply  may  be  proof  of  such  conspiracy. 
Now,  then,  if  the  Senate  believe  that  we  have  shown  any  common  purpose, 
which  is  all  that  is  necessary,  between  the  President  and  Thomas,  then  this 
authority  which  we  find  on  page  393  is  in  point : 

The  cases  in  which,  after  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy  is  established,  and  the  particular 
defendants  have  been  proved  to  have  been  parties  to  it,  the  acts  or  declarations  of  other  con- 
spirators may  be  given  in  evidence  against  them,  have  already  been  considered  (vide  ante, 
pp.  76-80.)  It  seems  to  make  no  ditference  as  to  the  admissibility  of  this  evidence,  whether 
the  other  conspirators  be  indicted  or  not,  or  tried  or  not ;  for  tlie  making  of  them  co-defendants 
would  give  no  additional  strength  to  their  declarations  as  against  others. 

That  authority  answers  the  argument  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  defendant 
when  he  says  Tljomas  is  not  here  on  trial.  No ;  but  his  consjurator  is,  his 
master  is,  his  principal  is,  and  the  fact  that  he  is  not  present  makes  no  difference 
on  the  question  of  evidence.  The  evidence  is  admissible  because  of  the  mutual 
agreein(!nt. 

To  show  that  this  doctrine  stands  upon  the  same  ground,  as  well  in  civil  cases 
as  in  criminal,  I  refer  next  to  2  Carrington  and  Payne,  page  232.  This  was  an 
action  of  false  imprisonment  against  three  certain  defendants  : 

The  plaintiff's  counsel  wished  to  give  in  evidence,  that  several  weeks  after  all  the 
defendants  had  locked  the  jilaintiff  up  in  the  cage,  the  defendant.  Court,  said,  "I  will 
take  care  that  neither  of  the  Wrights  shall  have  a  bed  to  lie  oti  before  the  end  of  six  months.'" 
At  the  time  tliis  was  said  the  other  defendants  were  not  present. 

These  threi,'  man  had  engaged  in  locking  a  man  up  in  jail,  and  weeks  after- 
ward one  of  the  defendants  made  a  declaration  as  to  his  purpose,  and  that  was 
to  oppress  the  party  injured  by  keeping  him  locked  up  and  putting  him  to  bod- 
ily inconvenience. 

Jervis,  for  the  defendants,  objected  tliat  this  doclaration  of  the  defendant,  Court,  ought 
not  to  be  received  in  evidence,  because  it  was  made  in  the  absence  of  the  other  defendants. 

M  *  *  *  * 

t 

Gakiiow,  IJ. — I  am  of  opinion  that  this  declaration  of  the  defendant,  Court,  is  evidence. 
It  is  necessary  that  the  plainiiiV  should  connect  all  the  defendants  as  joint  trespassers  in  the 
fact  of  iiiipris(tnmerit ;  and,  having  done  so,  I  nuist  receive  in  evidence  anything  that  either 
of  the  defendants  i-aid  relative  to  the  trespass,  though  in  the  absence  of  the  others.  So 
much  as  to  the  law.     On  the  hardship  of  the  case  I  need  only  say  that  if  the  law  were  not 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  197 

so,  ii  man  gcoiiipf  to  do  another  iin  injury  uiiglit  proclaim  his  malice  in  the  market-place  and 
jet  shut  out  evidence  of  sucli  malice  from  the  consideration  of  the  jury  by  only  associatiuj^ 
liimself  in  tlie  transaction  with  other  jiersons  a  shade  less  guilty  than  himself;  and  persons 
may  always  avoid  -the  declarations  of  the  malice  of  tiieir  co-defendants  operatinf^  against 
them  by  taking  care  not  to  be  concerned  in  the  doing  of  things  wiiich  they  cannot  after- 
v.-ard  justify. 

Is  not  this  case  precisely  in  point  with  ours,  only  a  linnilred  times  stronger? 
But  I  may  be  answered  that  that  is  an  English  case.  Well,  I  have  here  a 
United  St;ites  case,  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Gooding,  (12  Wheaton.) 
I  t=hall  read  from  pages  469  and  470.  Let  me  state  the  case.  One  Gooding 
had  litted  out  at  Baltimore  a  slaver  called  the  General  Winder — and  I  may  say, 
in  passing,  a  very  proper  name  for  it — and  having  fitted  her  out  he  sent  her  to 
the  West  Indies,  and  there  being  at  the  West  Indies,  before  she  started  on  her 
voyage  to  Africa,  the  captain  undertook  to  tell  a  witness  on  Avhat  voyage  she 
was  going,  where  she  was  bound ;  the  evidence  offered  being  : 

That  he,  Captain  Coit,  was  at  St.  Thounis  while  the  General  Winder  was  at  that  island 
in  September,  1S24,  and  was  freqnently  on  board  the  vessel  at  that  time ;  that  Captain  Hill, 
the  master  of  the  vessel,  then  and  there  proposed  to  the  witness  to  engage  on  board  the  Gen- 
eral Winder  as  mate  for  the  voyage  then  in  progress,  and  described  the  same  to  be  a  voyage 
to  the  coast  of  Africa  for  slaves,  and  thence  back  to  Trinidad  de  Cuba;  that  he  offered  to  the 
witness  seventy  dollars  per  month,  and  five  dollars  per  head  for  every  prime  slave  which 
should  be  brought  to  Cuba ;  that  on  the  witness  inquiring  who  would  see  the  crew  paid  in 
the  event  of  a  disaster  attending  the  voyage,  Captain  Hill  replied,  "  Uncle  John,"  meaning 
(as  the  witness  understood,)  John  Gooding,  the  defendant. 

The  defendant  being  in  Baltimoi'e  at  that  time,  the  first  point  taken  in  this 
case  was  that  the  act  of  hiring  a  man  to  be  a  mate  was  in  the  scope  of  his 
authority ;  and  the  second  point  was  that  telling  who  would  pay  him  was  a 
declaration  of  one  of  the  principals,  of  one  of  the  conspirators,  if  you  please,  of 
one  party  engaged  in  a  joint  transaction  with  the  other.  Upon  that  the  court 
say: 

Those  declarations  and  explanations  are  as  much  within  the  scope  of  the  authority  as  the 
act  of  hiring  itself.  Our  opinion  of  the  admissibility  of  this  evidence  proceeds  upon  the 
ground  that  these  were  not  the  naked  declarations  of  the  master,  unaccompanied  with  his 
acts  in  that  ca))acity,  but  declarations  coupled  with  proceedings  for  the  objects  of  the 
voyage,  and  while  it  was  in  progress.  We  give  no  opinion  upon  the  point  whether  mere 
declarations,  under  other  circumstances,  would  have  been  admissible. 

Now,  let  us  see  the  condition  of  General  Thomas.  lie  had  been  on  the  21st 
of  February  ordered  to  take  possession  "  immediately,"  at  once.  He  had  gone 
to  a  friend  of  his,  Mr.  Burleigh,  and  wanted  him  to  aid  him  in  this  object. 
He  Avas  hiring  a  mate,  if  you  please,  on  that  voyage,  precisely  v/ithin  the  case 
of  Gooding.  He  was  wanting  somebody  to  aid  him  ;  and  he  thereupon 
describes  to  Burleigh  the  voyage  ;  that  it  was  to  be  a  slaver's  voyage ;  what 
he  was  to  pay ;  how  it  was  to  be  received ;  how  he  was  to  seize  the  slave ;  or, 
in  other  words,  how  he  is  to  seize  the  War  Department ;  and  we  offer  to  put 
these  things  in  evidence  by  his  declarations. 

I  have  but  one  authority  more,  and  I  will  cease  troubling  the  Senate  upon 
this  point.     I  read  from  3  Greenleaf  on  Evidence,  section  93  : 

The  evidence  in  proof  of  a  conspiracy  will  generally,  trom  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  cir- 
cumstantial. Though  the  common  design  is  the  essence  of  the  chai'go,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  prove  that  the  defendants  came  together  and  actually  agreed  in  terms  to  have  that  design 
and  to  pursue  it  by  common  means.  If  it  be  proved  that  the  defendants  pursued  by  their 
acts  the  same  object,  often  by  the  same  means,  one  performing  one  part  and  another^ another 
part  of  the  same,  so  as  to  complete  it  with  a  view  to  the  attainment  of  that  same  object,  the 
jury  will  be  justified  in  the  conclusion  that  they  were  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  to  effect  that 
object. 

Almost  in  the  language  of  this  authority  the  object  was  to  get  the  War 
Department  at  all  hazards.  That  is  agreed  ;  that  is  in  the  President's  answer. 
It  is  there  said  to  be  a  high  constitutional  prerogative  to  do  it !  They  had 
been  notified  that  Stanton  would  hold  it  by  force,  as,  thank  God,  up  to  this 
hour,  he  has  held  it  against  these  conspirators  ;  and  being  notified   that  he 


198  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

would  not  deliver  it  except  to  force,  they  then  started  out  to  devise  ways  and 
means,  and  we  shall  show  you,  and  by  these  very  conversations  with  this  very 
person,  Thomas  declared  that  if  he  had  not  been  arrested  by  the  intervention 
of  the  courts  he  would  have  used  force  on  the  morning  when  he  was  there,  as 
has  been  shown. 

Now,  are  we,  upon  the  trial  of  this  issue,  to  be  told  that  the  President  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  can  employ  men  to  go  to  do  this,  that,  and  the  other,  which  is  illegal, 
admitted  to  be  illegal,  unless  the  law  is  unconstitutional,  and  then  turn  back  upon 
us  and  say,  "  Oh,  you  cannot  put  in  what  my  agents  said  while  they  were  pur- 
suing this  thing,  while  they  were  getting  together  means  to  execute  my  will." 
Let  me  illustrate  for  a  moment.  This  is  only  to  Burleigh.  Suppose  Thomas 
had  gone  to  get  the  commander  of  this  department.  General  Emory,  with  his 
forces.  Suppose  he  had  said  to  him,  "  I-want  you  to  come  to-morrow  to  aid  me 
and  see  me  take  this  department  by  force,"  could  we  not  put  that  in  ?  Is  this 
objected  to  because  he  only  asked  Mr.  Burleigh  1  If  he  kept  asking  men  enough 
to  go  with  him  he  would  have  had  enough,  as  he  thought  be  had,  until  the  hand 
of  the  laAV  was  laid  upon  him.  Therefore  I  respectfully  answer  the  (j^ucstiou  put 
by  the  learned  senator,  that  we  have  connected  and  do  expect  to  connect  the 
President  with  this  by  a  series  of  acts,  a  series  of  declarations,  a  series  of  opera- 
tions which  will  leave  no  doubt  on  the  mind  of  any  senator  what  this  purpose 
was.  But  we  claim,  further,  that  there  is  no  doubt  upon  any  man's  mind  what 
the  purpose  was  at  that  hour. 

I  desire,  in  closing,  simply  to  call  your  attention  to  the  opening  address  of  the 
Attorney  General — I  beg  pardon,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  defendant ;  he  will 
pardon  me,  but  I  have  been  so  accustomed  to  meet  him  in  other  relations  that  I 
sometimes  forget.  He  says  that  we  have  now  got  to  a  question  of  law  fit  to  be 
argued  by  lawyers  to  lawyers,  implying  that  all  other  questions  which  have  been 
argued  before  this  high  court,  as  he  insists  upon  calling  it,  have  not  been  fit  to 
be  argued  either  by  lawyers  or  to  lawyers.  It  is  for  you  to  defend  yourselves 
from  that  sort  of  imputation.  I  had  supposed  the  great  questions  we  had  been 
arguing  were  not  only  fit  to  be  argued  by  lawyers  to  lawyers,  but  by  statesmen 
to  statesmen,  by  the  representatives  of  the  people  to  the  senators  of  the  United 
States.  And  I  insist  that  this  question  is  not  one  to  be  narrowed  down  to  the 
attorney's  office,  but  is  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  law  and  enlightened 
jurisprudence  as  it  will  be  administered  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

The  question  for  you  to  determine  is,  will  this  evidence  aid  you,  for  you  are 
both  court  and  jury — this  is  not  a  case  where  the  court  rule  one  way  and  the 
jury  may  go  another;  but  you  are  both  court  and  jury — will  this  evidence 
enlighten  you  if  you  hear  from  this  Secretary  ad  interim  as  to  what  he  was 
doing  and  intending  to  do  in  this  matter,  joint  enterprise  of  himself  and  the 
President?  Will  it  enlighten  you  upon  the  judgment  you  are  to  render  ?  If  it 
will  not,  then  you  will  say  so,  and  vote  that  it  shall  not  be  heard,  and  the  i)eo pie's 
case  will  not  be  brought  before  the  Senate.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  will  enlighten 
you,  then  I  respectfully  and  earnestly  urge  that  it  may  be  received.  And  in 
this  we  are  fortunate  in  being  sustained  by  the  high  authority  of  the  presiding 
officer.  I  had  supposed  this  question  was  ruled  and  settled  yesterday,  and 
hardly  expected  to  debate  it  this  morning.  All  I  can  say  is,  as  the  decision  is 
made,  however  much  I  might  have  objected  to  the  mode  in  which  it  was  made, 
I  respectfully  submit  stare  dccisu.s  let  the  decision  stand,  in  the  language  of  the 
rule,  as  the  judgment  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Ci'RTis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  ask  to  have  the  question  propounded  by 
the  honorable  managers  read.  It  is  long,  and  consists  of  different  parts,  and  1 
desire  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  before  1  speak  to  it. 

The  CiilKF  JrSTiCK.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  propounded  by 
Mr.  Manaerer  Butler  to  the  witness. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT  199 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

You  said  yesterday,  in  answer  to  my  question,  that  you  had  a  conversation  with  General 
Lorenzo  Thomas  on  the  evenilig  of  the  21st  of  February  last.  State  if  he  said  anything  as 
to  the  means  by  which  he  intended  to  obtain,  or  was  directed  by  the  President  to  obtain,  pas- 
session  of  the  War  Department.     If  so,  state  what  he  said  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  you  will  observe  that  this 
question  contains  two  distinct  branches.  The  first  inquires  of  the  witness  for 
declarations  of  General  Thomas  respecting  his  own  intent.  The  second  inquires 
of  the  witness  for  declarations  of  General  Thomas  respecting  directions  given 
to  him  by  the  President.  In  reference  to  the  first  branch,  that  is,  the  separate 
and  independent  intent  of  General  Thomas  himself,  I*  am  not  aware  that  its 
subject-matter  is  anywhere  put  in  issue  by  the  articles.  General  Thomas  is  not 
on  trial.  It  is  the  President  who  is  on  trial.  It  is  his  intentions  or  directions, 
the  means,  the  unlawful  means,  which  he  is  charged  with  having  adopted  and 
endeavored  to  carry  into  effect,  which  constitute  criminality  in  those  articles 
which  relate  at  all  to  this  subject ;  and  therefore  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a 
sufiicient  objection  to  the  first  part  of  this  question  that  it  relates  to  a  subject- 
matter  wholly  immaterial,  and  which,  if  proved  by  legitimate  evidence,  ought  in 
no  manner  to  aftect  the  case  of  the  President.  The  President  is  not  charged 
here  with  any  ill  intentions  or  illegal  intentions  of  General  Thomas  ;  he  is  charged 
here  with  his  own  illegal  intentions ;  with  them  alone  can  he  be  charged  ;  and 
therefore  I  respectfully  submit  to  senators  that  that  branch  of  the  question 
which  seeks  to  draw  into  this  case  evidence  of  the  intentions  of  General  Thomas, 
aside  from  instructions  given  to  him  or  views  communicated  to  him  by  the  Presi- 
dent himself,  is  utterly  immaterial,  and  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  be  proved  by 
any  evidence,  whether  competent  or  incompetent. 

In  the  next  place,  I  submit  that  the  evidence  which  is  offered  to  prove  the 
intention  of  General  Thomas,  if  that  fact  were  in  issue  here,  and  could,  when 
proved,  have  any  effect  upon  the  President's  case,  is  not  of  an  admissible  chai-acter. 
The  intent  of  a  party,  as  every  lawyer  knows,  is  a  fact,  and  it  is  a  fact  to  be 
proved  bylegal  and  admissible  evidence,  just  as  much  as  any  other  fact.  It  is 
natural  for  a  person  not  a  lawyer  to  say  that  the  true  way  to  ascertain  a  man's 
intent  is  to  take  what  he  says  is  his  intent ;  because  intent  is  a  state  of  mind, 
and  when  that  is  expressed  that  expression  is  fit  evidence  of  it.  All  that  is  true; 
but  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  sworn  evidence  of  it,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  given  by  the 
man  when  on  the  stand  in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  and  with  opportunity 
for  cross-examination,  it  i.-^  no  evidence  at  all,  unless  you  can  bring  the  case 
within  one  of  the  exceptions  which  exist  in  the  law ;  one  of  these  exceptions, 
as  has  been  said  by  my  associate  counsel,  being  the  case  of  principal  and  agent; 
the  other  the  case  of  co-conspirators. 

I  do  not  propose  to  go  over  the  argument  which  was  so  clearly  and  forcibly 
put,  as  it  seems  to  me,  by  my  associate  who  opened  it.  I  think  senators  must 
have  understood  perfectly  well  the  grounds  upon  which  it  is  our  intention  to 
rest  this  objection  t»  the  declarations  of  General  Thomas,  so  far  as  regards  his 
own  intent,  that  he  was  not  the  agent  of  the  President,  that  he  received  from  a 
superior  officer  an  order  to  do  a  certain  thing,  and  in  no  sense  thereby  became  an 
agent  of  that  superior  oflicer,  nor  did  that  superior  officer  become  accountable 
for  the  manner  in  which  he  might  carry  out  that  order ;  and  that  this  is  specially 
true  when  the  nature  of  the  order  is  nothing  but  the  designation  of  one  public 
officer  to  notify  another  public  officer  that  he  has  been  designated  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  the  office  from  which  the  latter  has  been  removed ;  in  which  case 
whatever  this  designated  person  may  do  he  does  on  his  own  account  and  by  force 
of  his  own  views  of  how  the  authority  is  to  be  carried  out,  unless  he  has  received 
some  special  instructions  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  carrying  them  out. 

We  submit,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  intentions  of  General  Thomas 
are  immaterial,  and  the  President  cannot  be  affected  by  them  ;  and  secondly,  if 


200  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

ibey  be  material,  tlioy  must  be  proved  by  sworn  evideuco,  and  not  by  hearsay 
statements. 

The  other  part,  senators,  of  the  question  appears  to*nio  to  admit  of  even  less 
doubt;  and  that  purt  is  attempting  to  inquire  of  the  witness  what  was  said  by 
General  Thomas  respecting  directions  or  instructions  given  to  him  by  the 
President,  which  presents  the  naked  case  of  an  attempt  to  prove  an  authority 
of  an  agent  by  the  agent's  own  declarations.  The  question  is  whether  the 
President  gave  instructions  to  General  Thomas  in  regard  to  the  particular  man- 
ner or  means  by  which  this  order  was  to  be  carried  out.  Upon  its  face  the  order 
is  hitelligible.  We  understand  it  to  be  in  the  usual  form.  There  is  no  allusion 
made  to  the  exercise  of  force,  threats,  or  intimidation  of  any  kind.  Now  they 
propose  to  superadd  to  this  written  order,  by  means  of  the  declarations  of  the 
agent  himscl'',  that  he  had  an  authority  to  use  threats,  intimidation,  or  force  ;  and 
no  lawyer  will  say  that  that  can  be  done  unless  there  is  first  laid  the  foundation 
for  it  by  showing  that  the  two  parties  were  connected  together  as  co-conspirators. 
I  agree  that  if  they  could  show  a  conspiracy  between  the  President  and  General 
Thomas  to  which  these  declarations  relate,  then  the  declarations  of  one  of  them 
in  reference  to  the  subject-matter  of  that  conspiracy  would  be  evidence  against 
the  other. 

Now,  what  is  the  case  as  it  stands  here  before  you,  and  as  is  asserted  by  the 
honorable  manager  himself?  He  starts  out  with  the  proposition  that  the  Pres- 
ident in  his  answer  has  admitted  his  intention  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  from  ofiice. 
That,  he  says,  was  an  illegal  intention.  That,  he  says,  was  an  intention  to  be 
carried  out  by  means  of  the  order  given  to  General  Thomas  ;  and  when  the 
President,  he  says,  gave  that  order  to  General  Thomas,  and  General  Thomas 
accepted  it  and  undertook  to  execute  it,  there  was  an  agreement  between  them 
to  do  an  illegal  act.  What  was  the  illegal  act  which  thus  far  we  have  got  what 
he  calls  a  conspiracy  to  do  ?  It  was  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  ;  and,  if  that  bo 
contrary  to  the  tenure-of-office  act,  that,  when  accomplished,  may  be  an  illegal 
act.  But  is  that  the  illegal  act  which  they  are  now  undertaking  to  prove  ?  Is 
that  the  extent  of  the  conspiracy  which  they  are  now  undertaking  to  show  ? 
Not  at  all.  They  are  passing  altogether  beyond  that.  They  now  undertake 
to  eay,  **  we  will  shov»'  that  he  conspired  with  General  Thomas  to  remove  Mr. 
Stanton  by  force,  threats,  or  intimidation,  und  thus  to  commit  a  totally  distinct 
crime  under  the  conspiracy  act."  That  is  the  conspiracy  which  they  propose 
to  show.  Having  shown  only  an  agreement  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton,  and  start- 
ing with  that  agreement,  which,  of  course,  makes  the  entire  limits  of  the  con- 
spiracy, as  they  call  it,  of  which  they  have  given  evidence,  all  circumscribed 
within  this  intention  merely  to  remove  INIr.  Stanton,  they  now  graft  on  to  that 
by  a  pure  and  mere  assumption  a  conspiracy  to  remove  him  by  force;  and  so, 
having  proved  a  conspiracy  to  remove  him  without  force,  we  will  now  give  in 
evidence  the  declaration  of  these  co-conspirators  to  show  a  conspiracy  to  remove 
him  with  force.  I  respectfully  submit  they  have  then  travelled  out  of  the  limits 
of  the  conspiracy  which  they  themselves  pretend  they  have  given  any  evidence 
of;  and  as  soon  as  they  get  out  of  the  limits  of  that  conspiracy  which  they 
allege  and  say  they  have  given  some  proof  of,  and  advance  to  another  and 
totally  different  conspiracy,  namely,  the  conspiracy  to  turn  out  Mr.  Stanton  by 
force,  then  they  must  give  some  evidence  of  that  other  conspiracy  before  they 
can  use  the  declarations  of  either  of  the  parties  to  it  as  evidence  against  the 
President. 

But,  senators,  1  do  not  think  this  thing  should  be  left  here.  It  is  an  entire 
misconception  of  the  relations  of  these  two  parties,  the  Commander-in-chief 
and  a  subordinate  officer,  one  receiving  an  order  from  the  other,  under  any 'cir- 
cumstances which  appear  here,  or  which  there  is  any  evidence  here  tending  to 
prove,  to  call  it  a  conspiracy.  The  learned  manager  has  said  :  "  If  I  show  an 
agreement  between  two  persons  to  do  an  unlawful  act  that  is  a  conspiracy,  is  it 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  201 

uot  ?"  It  may  be;  but  when  the  Commauder-in-chief  gives  an  order  to  a 
subordiuate  officer  to  do  an  act,  and  the  subordinate  officer  goes  to  do  it,  is  that 
done  by  agreement  between  them  1  Does  it  derive  its  force  and  character  and 
operation  from  any  agreement  with  them,  any  concurrence  of  their  minds  by 
which  the  two  parties  assent  and  agree  together  so  as  to  accomplish  something 
which  without  that  assent  and  agreement  could  not  be  done  ?  Is  it  not  as  plain  as 
day  that  military  obedience  is  not  conspiracy  and  cannot  be  conspii-acy  ?  Is 
it  not  as  plain  as  day  tliat  it  is  the  duty  of  the  subordinate  officer  when  he  re- 
ceives an  order  from  his  commander  to  execute  that  order  ? 

My  associate  [Mr.  Evarts]  suggests  to  me  that,  as  is  a  Avell-known  fact,  and 
will,  no  doubt,  appear  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings,  when  General  Grant 
received  an  order  from  the  President  to  take  this  same  place,  he  put  it  upon  the 
grouTid  of  military  obedience.  Was  that  a  conspiracy  1  Senators,  there  can 
be  no  such  thing  as  a  conspiracy  between  the  Commander-in-chief  and  a  subor- 
dinate officer,  arising  simply  from  the  fact,  that  the  Commander-in-chief  issues 
an  order  and  the  subordinate  officer  obeys  it.  Therefore  I  respectfully  submit 
that  the  honorable  managers  have  not  only  proved  not  even  the  conspiracy  to 
remove  Mr.  Stanton  without  force,  but  they  have  offered  no  evidence  here  tend- 
ing to  prove  any  conspiracy  at  all.  It  rests  exactly  where  the  written  orders 
place  it ;  an  order  from  a  superior  officer  to  an  inferior  officer  and  an  assent  by 
him  to  execute  that  order. 

It  has  been  said  by  the  learned  manager  in  the  course  of  his  argument  that 
we  ought  to  have  objected,  if  we  took  this  view  of  the  case,  to  the  declarations 
made  by  General  Thomas  when  he  Avent  to  the  War  Department  on  Saturday, 
the  22d  of  February.  We  could  not  make  any  objection  to  what  he  then  said. 
It  was  competent  evidence.  He  was  there  in  pursuance  of  an  order  given  by 
the  President.  He  was  doing  what  the  President  authorized  him  to  do,  namely, 
delivering  one  order  to  Mr.  Stanton,  he  being  for  that  purpose  merely  the  mes- 
senger of  the  President ;  and,  having  executed  that,  to  take  possession  under 
the  other  order.  Of  course  he  authorized  him  to  demand  possession,  and  he 
did  demand  it ;  but  that  demand  was  as  much  an  act  and  as  capable  of  proof 
and  proper  to  be  proved  as  any  other  act.  Therefore  we  could  have  taken  no 
such  exception ;  it  could  not  have  come  at  all  within  the  range  of  any  of  the 
objections  which  we  now  take. 

The  learned  manager  relies,  also,  on  certain  authorities  which  he  has  produced 
from  the  books.  The  first  is  a  case  stated  in  Roscoe's  Criminal  Evidence ; 
page  390,  I  think,  he  read  from,  showing  that  under  some  circumstances  the 
acts  of  co-conspirators,  even  before  the  person  on  trial  had  joined  the  conspiracy, 
may  be  proved.  I  see  no  difficulty  in  that.  The  first  thing  is  to  prove  a  con- 
spiracy, which  is  a  separate  and  independent  foct,  or  may  be  wholly  separate 
and  independent  from  the  evidence  by  which  you  prove  the  other  step,  namely, 
that  a  particular  person  joined  in  it.  In  that  case  the  government  imdertook  to 
show,  in  the  first  place,  that  there  was  a  conspiracy.  They  proved  it  by  the 
assembling  together  of  a  body  of  men  for  the  purpose  of  military  training,  &c. 
Having  proved  that  there  was  a  conspiracy,  they  then  took  the  necessary  step 
to  show  that  the  accused  on  a  subsequent  day  joined  himself  in  that  conspiracy. 
That  was  all  regular  and  proper. 

If  they  will  take  the  first  step  here  and  in  support  of  their  articles  undertake 
to  show  by  evidence  a  conspiracy  between  the  President  and  General  Thomas,, 
when  they  have  done  that  they  may  go  on  and  give  evidence  of  the  declara- 
tions of  one  or  both  of  them  to  charge  the  other;  but,  until  they  do,  I  submit 
that  they  cannot  give  such  evidence. 

*l'he  case  from  2  Carriugton  and  Payne  was  a  case  of  a  joint  act  of  three  per- 
sons falsely  imprisoning  a  fourth.  There  was  the  conspiracy ;  there  was  the 
false  imprisonment,  the  illegal  act,  done  in  pursuance  of  the  conspiracy  ;  and  the 
court  decided  that  a  declaration  made  subsequent  to  the  imprisonment  as  to  what 


202  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

the  intentions  of  the  parties  were  and  how  they  intended  to  carry  it  out  would 
be  admissible  against  the  others,  all  of  which  falls  easily  within  the  same  rule. 

The  case  from  12  Wheaton  was  one  where  the  owner  of  a  ship  having  author- 
ized the  master  to  fit  out  a  vessel,  the  declarations  of  the  master  were  given  in 
evidence  to  show  the  object  and  intentions  of  the  voyage.  Unquestionably,  if 
be  had  made  him  his  agent  to  carry  on  a  slaving  voyage,  he  made  him  his  agent 
to  do  all  acts  necessary  to  carry  it  out.  What  was  the  act  that  was  given  in 
evidence?  It  was  an  attempt  to  engage  a  person  to  go  on  a  slave-trading  voy- 
age in  a  subordinate  capacity.  In  the  course  of  that  attempt  he  stated  to  him 
what  tlie  character  and  purposes  of  the  voyage  were ;  but  it  w.is  an  act  which 
he  was  engaged  in,  an  act  within  the  scope  of  his  authority  to  carry  on  the  voy- 
age, and  to  engage  persons  to  assist  him  in  doing  so.  This,  also,  falls  easily 
within  the  scope  of  the  principles  upon  which  we  rely. 

We  submit,  then,  to  the  Senate  that  neither  of  these  questions  should  be 
allowed  to  be  put  to  this  witness.  I  ought  to  say,  and  I  am  reminded  by  one 
of  my  associates  to  say,  that  the  statement  by  the  honorable  manager  that  the 
answer  of  the  President  admits  his  intention  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  from  office 
illegally  and  at  all  hazards  is  not  true.  The  honorable  manager  is  mistaken  if 
he  has  so  read  the  answer.  The  answer  distinctly  says,  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  President  believed,  after  the  greatest  consideration,  that  Mr.  Stanton's  ^a.?e 
was  not  within  the  tenure-of-office  act ;  and  the  answer  further  says  that  he 
jiever  authorized  General  Thomas  to  employ  threats,  force,  or  intimidation,  and 
if  the  honorable  manager  refers  to  the  answer  as  his  evidence  for  one  purpose 
he  must  take  it  as  it  stands. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President  and  senators,  I  had  occasion  to 
remark  yesterday,  upon  the  ruling  of  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  that  the 
managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  had  no  cause  of  complaint  touching  that 
ruling,  which  had  relation  to  the  introduction  of  this  testimony.  I  said  it,  sena- 
tors, because  I  was  assured  when  I  did  say  it  that  the  ruling  of  the  presiding  officer 
stands  upon  all  the  authorities,  English  and  American,  and  upon  that  point  I 
challenge  to-day  any  authority  to  call  in  question  the  ruling  that  the  testimony 
this  morning  objected  to,  and  ruled  as  admissible  yesterday  by  the  presiding 
officer,  is  not  admissible. 

I  have  listened  with  due  attention  to  the  learned  gentlemen  who  have  argued 
in  support  of  this  objection.  Admitting  their  premises,  it  might  be  but  just  to 
them  to  say  that  their  conclusions  follow  ;  but,  senators,  I  deny  their  premises. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  record  that  justifies  that  they  shall  assume  here,  for  the 
purposes  of  this  question,  that  we  are  restricted,  as  was  intimated  by  the  learned 
counsel  for  tlie  President,  to  the  article  which  alleges  that  this  conspiracy  was 
to  be  executed  by  force.  There  is  nothing  in  this  case,  as  it  stands  before  the 
Senate,  that  justifies  the  assumption  that  the  Senate  is  to  be  restricted  in  the 
decision  of  this  question  to  the  other  article  which  alle.^-e.s  that  this  conspiracy 
was  to  be  exercised  by  threats  and  intimidation.  There  is  nothing  in  tlie  ques- 
tion propounded  by  my  associate  to  the  witness  which  justifies  the  assumption 
made  here  that  the  witness  is  to  testify  that  any  force  was  to  be  em])loyed  at 
all,  although,  if  he  were  so  to  testify,  I  claim  upon  the  authorities,  and  upon  all 
the  authorities,  that  the  testimony  is  admissible. 

The  Senate  will  notice  that  in  article  five  there  is  no  averment  of  force,  there 
is  no  averment  of  threat  or  intimidation.  Tliere  is  simply  an  averment  in  arti- 
cle five  of  an  unlawl'ul  conspiracy  entered  into  between  the  accused  and  Lorenzo 
Thomas  to  violate  the  tenure-of-office  act.  My  associate-  was  right  upon  all 
authority,  and  it  is  conceded  that  if  two  or  more  agree  together  to  violate  a 
law  of  the  land,  it  is  a  conspiracy.  That  is  the  point  we  make  here.  In  arti- 
cle five  there  is  no  averment  of  force,  nor  is  any  needed ;  there  is  no  averment 
of  threat  or  intimidation,  nor  is  any  needed ;  but  there  is  simply  an  averment 
of  a  conspiracy  entered  into   between  the  accused  and   Lorenzo  Thomas,  and 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  203 

other  persons  unknown  to  the  House  of  Representatives  to  prevent  the  execu- 
tion of  the  tenuro-of-office  act.  That  act  declares  that  a  removal,  appointment, 
or  employment,  made  or  had  contrary  to  the  act,  or  an  interference,  if  you 
please,  with  the  provisions  of  the  act  and  contrary  to  its  requirements,  shall 
be  a  misdemeanor  on  the  part  of  any  man.  Of  course,  if  a  combination  be 
entered  into  between  two  or  more  to  prevent  its  execution,  that  combination 
itself  a  mounts  to  a  conspiracy. 

The  counsel  have  succeeded  most  admirably  in  diverting  the  attention  of  sena- 
tors from  the  question  which  underlies  the  admissibility  of  this  evidence,  and 
which  controls  it.  Irefer  now  specifically  to  article  five,  upon  which,  among  other 
articles,  we  claim  this  question  arises  which  was  not  referred  to  by  the  counsel 
for  the  accused  : 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high  duties 
of  his  office  and  of  his  oath  of  ofiSce,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1868,  and  on  divers  other  days  and  times  in  said  year,  before  tlie  25th  day  of  March,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  J  868,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Colmnbia,  did  unlawfully  con- 
spire with  one  Lorenzo  Thomas,  and  with  other  persons  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
unknown,  to  prevent  and  hinder  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the 
tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  18G~,  and  in  pursuance  of  said  conspiracy, 
did  unlawfully  attempt  to  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  then  and  there  being  Secretary  of  the 
Department  of  War,  duly  appointed  and  commissioned  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
from  holding  said  office,  whereby  the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States, 
did  then  and  there  commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

Now,  the  tenure-of-office  act,  which  is  recited  in  this  article,  provides  expressly 
that  the  person  holding  any  civil  office  at  the  time  of  its  enactment,  who  has 
theretofore  been  appointed  by  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 

"And  every  person  who  shall  hereafter  be  appointed  to  any  such  office,  and  shall  become 
duly  qualified  to  act  therein,  is  and  shall  be  entitled  to  hold  such  office  until  a  successor 
shall  have  been  in  like  manner  appointed  and  duly  qualitied." 

That  is  to  say,  all  such  oflicers  shall  hold  their  office  until  a  successor  be 
appointed  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  The  act 
then  provides  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall,  during  the  recess  of 
the  Senate,  not  at  other  time  but  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  in  case  he  is 
satisfied  that  any  ofiicer  is 

"  Guilty  of  misconduct  in  office  or  crime,  or  forany  reason  shall  become  incapable  or  legally 
disqualified  to  perform  its  duties,  in  such  case,  and  in  no  other,  the  President  may  suspend 
such  officer  and  designate  some  suitable  person  to  perform,  temporarily,  the  duties  of  such 
office  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Senate,  and  until  the  case  shall  be  acted  upon  by  the 
Senate ;  and  such  person  so  designated  shall  take  the  oaths  and  give  the  bonds  required  by 
law  to  be  taken  and  given  by  the  person  duly  appointed  to  till  such  office ;  and  in  such  case 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President,  within  twenty  days  after  the  first  day  of  such  next 
meeting  of  the  Senate,  to  report  to  the  Senate  such  suspension,  with  the  evidence  and  rea- 
sons for  his  action  in  the  case,  and  the  name  of  the  person  so  designated  to  perform  the 
duties  of  such  office  ;  and  if  the  Senate  shall  concur  in  such  suspension  and  advise  and  con- 
sent to  the  removal  of  such  officer,  they  shall  so  certify  to  the  President,  who  may  thereupon 
remove  such  officer,  and,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  appoint  another 
person  to  such  office.  But  if  the  senate  shall  refuse  to  concur  in  such  suspension,  such 
officer,  so  suspended,  shall  forthwith  resume  the  functions  of  his  office." 

The  sixth  section  of  the  same  act  provides — 

That  every  removal,  appointment,  or  employment,  made,  hud,  or  exercised  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  and  the  making,  signing,  sealing,  countersigning,  or  issuing  of  any 
commission  or  letter  of  authority  for  or  in  respect  to  any  such  appointment  or  employment, 
shall  be  deemed,  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be,  high  misdemeanors. 

The  conspiracy  entered  into  here  between  these  two  parties  was  to  prevent 
the  execution  of  this  law,  whicli  is  so  plain  that  no  man  can  mistake  it ;  nor  can 
the  President,  in  the  presence  of  this  tribunal,  or  Lorenzo  Thomas  either,  shel- 
teii  himself  by  the  intimation  that  it  was  a  military  order  to  a  subordinate. 
Are  we  to  be  told,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate,  that  it  is  competent 
for  the  President  of  the  United  States  either  to  shelter  himself  or  any  of  his 
subordinates  by  issuing  to-morrow  a  mihtary  order,  either  to  Adjutant  General 
Thomas  or  to  any  other  officer  of  the  army  of  the  United  States,  to  di-sperse  the 


•204  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

CoDgress  of  the  nation  ?  It  is  an  aftertliouglit,  gentlemen  of  the  Senate.  It  is 
no  military  order ;  it  is  a  letter  of  authority  -within  the  express  words  of  the 
statute  and  in  violation  of  it.  The  evidence  is  that  Lorenzo  Thomas  accepted 
it  and  acted  upon  it.  The  evidence  of  his  action  upon  it  was  given  yesterday, 
and  received  by  the  Senate  without  objection.  It  is  too  late  to  raise  the  ques- 
tion of  the  competency  of  this  evidence  after  there  is  evidence  here  tending  to 
show  a  conspiracy  to  violate  the  plain  letter  of  this  law. 

It  is  perfectly  justifiable,  I  take  it,  in  this  tribunal  for  me  to  say  fuVther,  and 
i^ay  it  upon  my  own  honor  as  one  of  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House, 
that  we  rely  not  simply  upon  the  declaration  of  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  show  this 
purpose  of  the  accused  at  your  bar  to  disregard  this  statute,  to  violate  its  plain 
provisions,  that  the  officer  thus  affirmed  by  .the  Senate  upon  suspension  shall 
forthwith  enter  upon  the  duties  of  his  office,  but  we  expect  by  the  written  con- 
fession of  the  accused  himself  to  show  to  this  Senate  this  day,  or  as  soon 
thereafter  as  we  can  be  heard,  that  it  was  his  declared,  fixed  purpose,  in  any 
event,  to  defy  the  authority  of  the  Senate,  and  prevent  Stanton  from  resuming 
the  functions  of  the  office.  There  was  no  reference  then  made  to  the  interven- 
tion of  courts.  The  accused  grasped  the  power  in  his  own  hands  of  repealing 
the  law  of  the  nation,  of  challenging  the  power  of  the  nation  to  bring  him  to 
its  bar  to  answer  ;  and  now,  vrhen  we  attempt  to  progress  with  the  trial  accord- 
ing to  the  known  and  establis!ied  rules  of  evidence  in  all  courts  of  justice,  we 
are  met  with  the  plausible  and  ingenious — more  plausibleand  more  ingenious  than 
sound — remark  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  accused  who  has  just  taken  his  seat, 
that  the  declaration  of  one  co-conspirator  cannot  be  given  in  evidence  against 
another  as  to  his  mode  of  executing  it.  1  state  it,  perhaps,  a  little  more  strongly 
than  the  counsel  stated  it,  but  that  was  exactly  the  significance  of  his  remark. 
I  should  like  to  know  whence  he  derives  any  such  authority. 

A  declaration  of  a  co-conspirator  made  in  the  prosecution  of  the  conspiracy,  I  ven- 
ture to  say  here  upon  all  authority,  is  admissible,  even  as  to  the  mode  in  Avhich 
he  would  execute  and  carry  out  the  common  design — admissible  not  simply 
against  himself,  but  admissible  against  his  co-conspirator,  admissible  against  them, 
not  to  establish  the  original  conspiracy,  but  to  prove  the  intent  and  purpose  of 
the  party  to  execute  the  conspiracy.  The  conspiracy  is  complete  upon  all 
authority  whenever  the  agreement  is  entered  into  to  violate  the  law,  no  matter 
whether  an  overt  act  is  ever  committed  afterward  in  pursuance  of  it  or  not  ; 
but  the  overt  acts  that  are  committed  afterward  by  any  one  of  the  conspirators 
in  pursuance  of  the  conspiracy  are  evidence  against  him,  and  against  his  co-con- 
spirators. That  is  precisely  the  ground  upon  Avhicli  the  ruling  was  made  yester- 
day by  the  presiding  officer  of  the  court.  That  is  the  ground  upon  which  we 
stand  to-day. 

I  quite  agree  with  the  learned  counsel  for  the  accused  that  tin;  declaration  of  a 
purpose  to  do  some  act  independent  of  the  original  design  of  the  conspiracy,  to 
commit  some  substantive,  independent  crime,  is  evidence  against  nobody  but 
the  party  who  makes  it;  but  how  can  the  Senate  judge  that  such  was  the 
declaration  of  Thomas,  when  not  one  word  was  dro))ped  from  the  lijis  of  the 
v/itness  as  to  how  he  intended  to  carry  into  effect  tliis  conspiracy,  which  was 
to  prevent  the  execution  of  this  law,  and  which,  in  the  language  of  the  accused, 
as  we  hope  to  show  it  here  to  the  Senate,  was  determined  upon  by  himself,  in 
which  Lorenzo  Thomas  was  in  perfect  accord  with  him,  having  voluntarily 
entered  upon  this  duty?  He  did  not  act  that  day,  senators,  as  Adjutant 
General  of  the  Unit(;d  States.  He  acted  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  ;  so 
denominated  himself  in  presence  of  the  Secretary  ;  claimed  that  he  was  Secre- 
tary  of  War  by  virtue  of  a  letter  of  authority  which  he  carried  upon  his  person. 

Now  we  are  to  be  told  that  because  he  is  not  on  trial  before  this  tribunal  his 
declarations  cannot  be  admitted  in  evidence,  while  the  counsel  themselves  read 
the  text  going  to  show  that  if  they  were  joined  in  the  record,  as  he  may  be  here- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  205 

after,  in  the  eveut  of  ;i  certain  decision  by  this  tribunal,  bis  declarations  would 
be  clearly  admissible. 

The  Senate  have  it  in  their  power,  (and  there  is  authority  fo'*  saying  that,) 
sitting-  as  a  high  court  of  impeachment,  to 'apply  the  reason  of  the  rule, 
although  by  the  order  of  the  proceeding  at  the  common  law  a  different  condition 
of  things  might  obtain  in  which  alone  it  would  apply.  We  cannot  impeach 
Lorenzo  Thomas  at  all,  for  the  reason  that  he  is  not  a  civil  officer  of  the  govern- 
ment. So  we  understand  it.  The  power  of  the  House  of  Representatives  does 
not  extend  beyond  the  President,  Vice-President,  and  other  civil  officers.  To 
be  sure,  he  claims  to  be  a  civil  officer;  and  he  is  one,  if  the  President  of  the 
United  States  has  power,  by  this  combination  with  him,  to  repeal  your  statute 
and  to  repeal  the  Constitution  of  the  country. 

I  have  thus  spoken  on  this  question,  senators,  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  the 
significance  and  importance  which  I  know  the  counsel  for  the  accused  attach  to 
it.  It  is  not  simply  that  they  desire  (I  say  it  with  all  respect)  that  this  testi- 
mony shall  be  ruled  out ;  but  they  desire  in  some  sort,  in  some  questionable 
shape,  a  judgment  now,  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  upon  the  main  question, 
whether  Andrew  Johnson  is  guilty  of  a  crime,  even  though  it  be  proved  here- 
after as  charged.  As  I  have  intimated,  it  was  his  purpose  to  defy  the  final 
judgment  of  the  Senate  itself  and  the  authority  of  the  law  which  declares,  if 
he  does  so  defy  it,  his  act  shall  be  a  high  misdemeanor.  That  is  what  is  to  be 
signified  by  this  decision  of  the  Senate.  It  is  not  simply  the  incompetency  of 
this  evidence  that  is  looked  for,  but  the  insufficiency  of  the  charge  in  the  fifth 
article  against  the  accused  which  is  hoped  for  by  your  decision. 

I  understand  it  was  intimated  by  one  of  the  counsel  that,  if  this  was  a  con- 
spiracy, the  acceptance  by  General  Grant  of  the  appointment  of  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim  was  also  a  conspiracy.  The  Senate  will  see  very  clearly  from 
my  reading  of  the  statute,  or  from  my  reminding  them,  rather,  of  that  which 
they  do  know,  that  it  does  not  follow,  and.  cannot  be  at  all.  It  involves  a  very 
different  question,  for  the  reason  that  the  statute  expressly  authorizes  the 
President,  for  reasons  of  course  satisfactory  to  himself,  during  the  recess  of  the 
Senate,  to  suspend  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  to  appoint  a  Secretary  ad  interim, 
upon  the  condition,  nevertheless,  that  he  shall,  within  twenty  days  after  the 
next  session  of  the  Senate,  report  his  action  together  with  the  evidence,  and 
have  the  decision  of  the  Senate  upon  it.  He  did  so  act.  There  was  no 
conspiracy  in  it,  and  there  is  none  alleged  here.  He  did  ,so  act.  He  did 
recognize  the  obligation  of  the  law.  He  did  avail  himself  of  the  authority 
with  which  it  invested  him.  He  did  suspend  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  appoint 
a  Secretary  ad  interim.  He  did  within  twenty  days  thereafter  report  the 
fact  to  the  Senate,  together  with  his  reasons.  The  Senate,  in  pursuance  of  the 
act,  did  pronounce  judgment  upon  the  sufficiency  of  the  causes  of  suspension, 
and  reversed,  in  accordance  with  the  act,  the  action  of  the  President.  The 
Senate  notified  hira  of  it.  In  the  mean  time  he  enters  into  his  combina- 
tions, his  conspiracies,  to  defeat  the  action  of  the  Senate,  and  to  overturn  the 
majesty  of  the  law ;  and  now,  when  we  bring  him  into  court  and  produce  his 
written  letter  of  authority  issued  to  his  co-conspirator,  in  direct  violation  of  the 
law,  while  the  Senate  was  in  session,  and  after  its  action  upon  this  very  ques- 
tion, and  prove  Thomas's  act,  in  pursuance  of  the  conspiracy,  at  the  War 
Department  asserting  the  authority  to  control  that  department,  declaring  that 
he  would  take  possession  of  its  mails,  declaring  that  lie  would  not  obey  the 
orders  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  who  is  declared  such  by  the 
solemn  action  of  the  Senate,  and  by  the  express  letter  of  the  law  ;  and  while  we 
attempt  to  pursue  it  further,  by  showing  his  declarations,  coupled  with  an 
attempt,  as  I  assert  now  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate,  to  get  additional  aid  in 
the  execution  of  this  conspiracy,  we  are  told  that  it  is  not  competent. 

I  desire  to  see  the  authority  anywhere  recognized  as  respectable  in  a  court  of 


206  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

justice  that,  when  there  is  evidence  tending  to  show  a  conspiracy  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  a  given  purpose  between  two  or  more  persona,  it  is  not  competent 
upon  the  trial  ol'  any  one  of  the  conspirators  to  prove  the  declarations  and  acts 
of  any  of  his  co-conspirators,  wiiether  living  or  dead,  whether  on  trial  or  not,  in 
the  prosecution  of  the  common  design,  no  matter  what  means  he  intended  to 
employ. 

Now,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I  believe  it  will  turn  out — as  I  said  before,  the 
Senate  will  be  the  judge  of  that  when  they  hear  the  evidence — and  they  cannot 
judge  of  it  before — that  there  will  be  in  this  conversation  between  Burleigh 
and  Thomas  enough  to  indicate  to  the  satisfaction  of  senators  that  he  did  not 
simply  desire  to  acquaint  him  of  how  this  agreement  and  conspiracy  between 
himself  and  Johnson  was  to  be  executed  in  the  morning,  but  relying  upon  his 
personal  friendship  he  desired  his  presence  there  on  that  occasion.  If  that  be 
so,  he  was  seeking  for  aid  by  which  to  carry  into  effect  the  original  conspiracy 
and  execute  it,  and  what  was  that  ?  To  defeat  the  action  of  the  Senate,  to 
defeat  the  requirement  of  the  law  that  the  Secretary  of  War  should  forthwith 
resume  the  duties  of  the  office,  and  to  control  it  himself. 

I  think  that  I  have  said  all  that  is  needful  for  me  tO'  say.  I  leave  the  ques- 
tion for  the  decision  of  the  Senate,  perfectly  assured  that  they  will  hear  first  and 
decide  afterward.  It  is  certainly  very  competent  for  the  Senate,  as  it  is  compe- 
tent for  any  court  of  justice  in  the  trial  of  cases  where  questions  of  doubt  arise, 
to  hear  the  evidence,  and,  where  they  themselves  are  the  judges  both  of  the  law 
and  the  fact,  to  dismiss  so  much  of  it  as  they  may  find  incompetent,  if  there  be 
any  of  it  incompetent.  I  insist  upon  it  that  there  is  no  word  of  this  evidence 
which  upon  any  just  rule  of  evidence  can  for  a  moment  be  questioned  or  chal- 
lenged by  anybody. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  desire  the  honorable  managers  to  answer 
two  questions  which  I  send  to  the  Chair. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  questions  propounded  by 
the  senator  from  Maryland. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

The  honorable  managers  are  requested  to  say  whether  evidence  liereafter  will  be  produced 
to  show — 

First.  That  the  President,  before  the  time  when  the  declarations  of  Thomas  which  they 
propose  to  prove  were  made,  authorized  him  to  obtain  possession  of  the  office  by  force  or 
threats,  or  intimidation,  if  necessary  ;  or. 

Secondly.  If  not,  that  the  President  had  knowledge  that  such  declarations  had  been  made 
and  approved  of  them. 

Mr.  Manager  Bin(;ha.m.  I  am  instructed  by  my  associates  to  say — and  I  am 
in  accord  in  judgment  with  them,  Mr.  President — that  we  do  not  deem  it  our 
duty  to  make  answer  to  so  general  a  question  as  that ;  and  it  will  certainly 
occur  to  the  Senate  why  we  should  nut  make  answer  to  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  INIr.  Chief  Justice,  as  we  claim  on  the  part  of  the  counsel 

Mr.  Manager  BlNCiHA.M.  1  rise  to  a  question  here.  I  understand  that  we 
speak  here  under  a  rule  of  the  Senate,  as  yet  at  least,  that  requires  us  to  be 
restricted  to  an  hour  on  each  side. 

Mr.  SxANiiKuv.  And  one  counsel,  if  you  go  according  to  the  rule. 

Mr.  Manager  BiN(iHA.M.  No;  I  do  not  understand  that.  I  understand,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  practice  heretofore  tlius  far  in  the  progress  of  this  trial 
has  been  to  allow  the  counsel  to  divide  their  time  as  they  pleased,  within  but 
one  hour  on  each  side.  The  point  to  whicli  I  rise,  now,  however,  is  this  :  that 
we  understand  that  in  a  proceeding  of  this  sort  the  managers  have  always 
claimed  and  asserted,  where  the  point  was  raised  at  all,  the  right  to  conclude 
upon  all  questions  that  Avere  raised  in  the  progress  of  the  trial.  The  howr  has 
been  well-nigh  expended  in  this  instance  on  each  side,  as  I  am  told,  though  I 
have  not  taken  any  special  note  of  the  time.  But  we  raise  the  question  ;  and 
1  state  that  the  fact  that  our  lime  has  been  exhausted,  as  I  am  advised,  is  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  207 

only  reason  why  I  rai-se  it  now ;  and  thus  we  are  cut  off  from  any  further  reply. 
Our  only  object  in  raising  the  question  is  that  we  shall  not  be  deemed  to  have 
■waived  it,  because  mt.  are  advised  that  it  was  settled  years  ago  in  Melville's 
case  by  the  lord  chancellor  presiding  and  by  the  peers  that  the  managers  might 
waive  their  privilege  by  their  silence. 

Mr.  Manager  Buti.p^r.  We  have  the  affirmative. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  On  this  question?     Oh,  no. 

Mr,  Manager  Bingham.  We  have  made  the  proposition  to  introduce  tlie  proof, 
but  the  objection  to  its  admissibility  comes  from  the  other  side. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  managers  object  to  the  counsel  for  the  President 
proceeding  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  We  only  raise  the  question  to  save  our  right  of 
being  heard  in  reply;  and,  as  I  stated  before,  the  only  reason  we  object  now  is 
that  we  understand,  without  notice  given  to  us,  that  our  hour  has  been  exhausted. 
Therefore  we  object. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators 

The  Chief  Justice.  Before  the  counsel  proceeds,  the  Chair  desires  to  state 
to  the  Senate  and  obtain  their  judgment  upon  the  construction  of  this  rule.  In 
the  present  case,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  the  Chief  Justice  will  not  apply 
the  rule,  but  pursue  the  course  which  has  been  heretofore  pursued,  of  allowing 
each  counsel  an  hour  and  not  limiting  the  number  of  persons  speaking,  but  for 
future  guidance  the  Chief  Justice  would  like  to  take  the  sense  of  the  Senate,  and 
will  as  soon  as  this  discussion  is  closed;  or  he  will  take  it  now  if  any  senator 
desires  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Will  the  presiding  officer  allow  me  a  single  observa- 
tion here  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  is  this :  that  I  limited  myself  expressly,  and  divided 
my  time  with  my  brother  manager,  in  the  argument,  and  left  out  many  things 
that  I  should  have  endeavored  to  address  to  the  Senate,  upon  the  understand- 
ing of  the  rule  that  we  could  only  have  an  hour  on  a  side.  The  rule  said  so, 
and  I  supposed  it  meant  Avhat  it  said.  Now,  if  the  presiding  officer  and  the 
Senate  shall  allow  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  to  have  an  hmir  each,  there  will 
have  been  an  administration  of  the  rule  which  is  exceedingly  onerous  upon  us, 
and  which  we  ought  to  have  been  notified  of  before;  and  .we  should  like  to 
know  whether  we  can  ever  have  a  conclusion  on  one  of  these  questions,  which 
is  our  right  and  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  CoNXESS.  Mr.  President,  I  ask  for  the  application  of  the  rule. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  the  Chair  will  state  the  question  to  the  Senate 
The  twentieth  rule  provides  that — 

All  preliminary  or  interlocutory  questions  and  all  motions  shall  be  argued  for  not  exceed 
ing  one  hour  on  each  side,  unless  the  Senate  shall,  by  order,  extend  the  time. 

The  twenty-first  rule  provides  :  . 

The  case  on  each  side  shall  be  opened  by  one  person.  The  final  argument  on  the  nieiit 
may  be  made  by  two  persons  on  each  side,  (unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Senate,  upon 
application  for  that  purpose,)  and  the  argument  shall  be  opened  and  closed  on  the  part  of  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

On  looking  at  these  two  rules  together,  the  Chief  Justice  was  under  the 
impression  that  it  was  intended  by  the  twentieth  rule  to  limit  the  time,  and  not 
limit  the  persons  ;  whereas,  by  the  twenty-first  rule,  it  was  intended  to  limit  the 
number  of  persons  and  leave  the  time  unlimited  ;  and  he  has  acted  upon  that 
construction.  He  will  now,  with  the  leave  of  the  Senate,  submit  to  them  the 
question :  Does  the  twentieth  rule  limit  the  time  without  respect  to  the  number 
of  persons  1     Upon  that  question  the  Chair  will  take  the  sense  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Drake.  The  yeas  and  nays  are  required,  I  suggest,  Mr.  President. 

The  Chief  Justice.  They  have  not  been  required  as  yet. 


208  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Drakk.  I  suggest  now  this  point  of  order:  that  all  orders  and  decisions 
must,  since  the  change  made  in  the  seventh  rule  yesterday,  be  taken  by  yeas  and 
nays  ;  that  there  is  no  provision  now  existing  in  the  rules  for  putting  a  question 
to  the  Senate  without  a  division ;  that  that  is  struck  out ;  and  that  the  twenty- 
third  rule  requires  that  "  all  the  orders  and  decisions  shall  be  made  and  had  by 
yeas  and  nays," 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  sees  nothing  in  the  seventh  rule  which 
requires  this  question  to  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  unless  they  arc  demanded 
in  the  usual  mode  by  one-fifth  of  the  senators  present.  Senators,  you  who  are 
of  opinion  that  the  limitation  in  the  twentieth  rule  applies  to  the  whole  number 
of  persons  to  argue  will  please  say  ay,  and  the  contrary  opinion  no. 

The  question  being  put,  it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative,  nem.  con 

The  Chikf  Jiistioe.  The  Senate  decides  that  the  limitation  of  one  hot.r  has 
reference  to  the  whole  number  of  persons  to  speak  on  each  side,  and  not  to 
each  person  severally  ;  and  will  apply  the  rule  as  thus  construed. 

Mr.  Co,\KLii\G.  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  the  counsel  for  the  President, 
having  been  und(?r  misapprehension  as  to  the  application  of  this  rule,  owing  to 
the  suggestion  of  the  Chair,  have  permission  in  this  instance  to  submit  any  addi- 
tional remarks  which  they  may  wish  to  submit, 

Mr.  Trumbull.  Mr.  President,  before  that  motion  is  put  I  desire  to  inquire 
whether  the  counsel  for  the  President  have  exhausted  their  hour. 

The  Chief  Justice.  They  have. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Mr.  President,  I  hope  the  senator  from  New  York 

The  Chief  Justk  e.  Debate  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I  desire  to  submit  an  amendment  to  the  motion  of  the  senator 
from  New  York. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  will  send  his  amendment  to  the  Chair  in 
writing. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  perhaps  I  may  be  allowed  to  say  that  we 
do  not  understand  that  as  yet  on  our  side  ^ve  have  transcended  the  twentieth 
rule.     We  have  not  occupied  an  hour  in  debate  on  our  side  of  the  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  the  counsel  for  the  defend- 
ant have  occupied  one  hour. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Subject,  of  course,  to  the  computation  of  the  Chair.  If  the 
hour  has  expired  I  was  not  aware  of  it.  I  do  not  desire,  nor  do  my  associates 
desire,  that  we  should  transcend  the  rule.  We  supposed  we  had  some  moments 
of  the  hour  unoccupied.  I  rose  with  the  intention,  however,  of  claiming,  on  the 
part  of  the  counsel  for  the  President,  the  right  of  closing  as  well  as  opening, 
according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  interlocutory  discussion. 

The  Chief  Justice.  That  question  is  not  at  present  before  the  Senate. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNU.  After  the  suggestion  of  the  counsel  I  withdraw  my  motion. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  ]\[r. 
Manager  Butler. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

You  said  ycsteitlay,  in  answer  to  my  question,  tliat  yon  had  a  conversation  with  General 
Lorenzo  Thomas  on  tlie  evening  of  the  :<Jlst  of  February  last.  State  if  he  said  anything  as 
to  the  means  by  wliich  lie  intended  to  obtain,  or  was  directed  by  the  President  to  obtain, 
j)osscssiou  of  the  War  Department.     If  so,  state  all  he  said  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Johnson    1  ask  now  that  the  question  I  sent  to  the  Chair  be  read. 

'ilie  Chief  Justice.  The  question  before  the  Senate  now  is,  Shall  the  ques- 
tion propounded  by  IMr.  jNIanagor  Butler  be  put  to  tht;  witness  > 

Mr.  Drake.  On  that  question  the  yeas  and  nays  must  be  taken  under  the 
rules,  T  submit. 

Mr.  Edmunds  and  others.  No,  no. 

Mr.  Drake.  It  is  so,  sir. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  It  is  not  so. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  209 

The  Chief  Justice.  Upon  the  question  of  order  raised  by  tl)e  senator 
from  Jlissouri,  the  Chair  is  of  opinion  that  he  may  submit  this  question  to  the 
Senate  without  having  the  yeas  and  nays  taken,  unless  the  yeas  and  nays  are 
demanded  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  present. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  I  should  like  to  hear  the  seventh  rule  read  as  amended. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  rule. 

Tr\e  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

VII.  The  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  shall  direct  all  necessary  preparations  in  the  Senate 
chamber,  and  the  presidinpf  officer  on  the  trial  shall  direct  all  the  forms  of  proceeding  while 
the  Senate  are  sitting  for  the  purpose  of  trying  an  impeachment,  and  all  forms  during  the 
trial  not  otherwise  specially  provided  for.  And  the  presiding  officer  on  the  trial  may  rule 
all  ([uestions  of  evidence  and  incidental  (piestions,  which  ruling  shall  stand  as  tiie  judgment 
of  the  Senate,  unless  some  member  of  the  Senate  shall  ask  that  a  formal  vote  l)e  takea 
thereon,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  decision ;  or  he  may,  at  his 
option,  in  the  first  instance,  submit  any  such  question  to  a  vote  of  the  members  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  JoHNSOM.  The  questions  that  I  submitted 

The  Chief  Justice.  Debate  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  JoHNSO.\.  I  am  not  about  to  debate.  The  questions  that  I  submitted, 
were  not,  as  I  think,  heard  by  all  the  members  of  the  Senate.  I  mean  the  ques- 
tions which  the  honorable  managers  thought  it  their  duty  to  decline  to  answer. 
1  ask  that  they  be  again  read  before  the  vote  is  taken. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  questions  submitted  by  the  senator  from  Maryland 
will  be  again  read. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  May  the  managers  be  allowed  to  suggest  that  the 
managers  heard  the  questions  and  respectfully  declined  to  answer  them  i*  It 
seems  to  the  managers,  also,  somewhat  in  the  nature  of  an  argument  upon  the 
questions  involved. 

]\Ir.  JoHNSOiV.  Read  the  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

The  honorable  managers  are  requested  to  say  whether  evidence  hereafter  vvill  be  produced 
to  show — 

1.  That  the  President  before  the  time  wlien  declarations  of  Thomas  which  they  propose  to 
prove  were  made,  authorized  him  to  obtain  possession  of  the  office  by  force,  or  threats,  or 
intimidation,  if  necessary  ;  or, 

2.  If  not,  that  the  President  had  knowledge  that  such  declarations  had  been  made  and 
approved  of  them. 

Several  Senators.  Question!     Question! 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators 

Mr.  Drake.  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  let  us  see  if  the  Senate  will  not 
order  them. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  39,  nays 
11 ;  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Cragin,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Henderson, 
Howard,  Howe,  Alorgau,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye;,  Patterson  of 
New  Hampshire,  Ponieroy,  Kamsey,  Koss,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer, 
Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Wiukle,  Willey,  Williams,  and  Wilson— 39. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixou,Doolittle,  Hendricks, Johnson,  McCreery, 
Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  ami  Vickers— 11. 

Not  Voting— Messrs.  Harlan,  Saulsbury,  Wade,  and  Yates— 4. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  39,  and  the  nays  11.  So 
the  Senate  decides  that  the  question  proposed  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  shall 
be  put  to  the  witness. 

Hon.  Walter  A.  Burleigh,  resumed  the  stand,  and  his  examination  was  con- 
tinued. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  You  said  yesterday,  in  answer  to  my  question,  that  you  had  a  conversation 
14  I  P 


210  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

■W'ith  General  Lorenzo  Thomas  on  the  evening  of  the  21st  of  February  last. 
State  if  he  said  anytliing  as  to  the  means  by  which  he  intended  to  obtain  or 
was  directed  by  the  President  to  obtain  possession  of  the  War  Department. 
If  so,  state  all  he  said,  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

A.  On  tlie  evening  of  the  21st  of  February  last,  I  learned  that  General 
Thomas  had  been  appointed  Secretary  of  War  ad  i/iferiin,  I  think  while  at  tlie 
Metro|)olitan  Hotel.  I  invited  Mr.  Leonard  Smith,  of  Leavenworth,  Kansas,  to 
go  witli  me  up  to  his  house  and  see  bim.  We  took  a  carriage  and  went  up.  I 
found  the  general  there  getting  ready  to  go  out  with  his  daughters  to  spend  the 
evening  at  some  place  of  amusement.  I  told  him  I  would  not  detain  him  if 
he  was  going  out ;  but  he  insisted  on  my  sitting  down,  and  I  sat  down  for  a 
few  moments.  I  told  liim  that  I  had  learned  he  had  been  appointed  Secretary 
of  War.  He  said  he  had  ;  that  he  had  been  appointed  that  day,  I  thiuk  ;  that 
after  receiving  his  appointment  from  the  President  he  went  to  the  War  Office  to 
show  his  authority  or  his  appointment  to  Secretary  Stanton,  and  also  his  order 
to  take  possession  of  the  office  ;  that  the  Secretary  remai-ked  to  him  that  he 
supposed  he  would  give  him  time  to  remove  his  personal  effects  or  his  private 
papers,  something  to  that  effect ;  and  his  reply  was  "  Certainly."  He  said  that 
in  a  short  time  the  Secretary  asked  him  if  he  would  give  him  a  copy  of  his  order, 
and  he  replied  "Certainly,"  and  gave  it  to  him.  He  said  that  it  was  no  more 
than  right  to  give  him  time  to  take  out  his  personal  effects.  I  asked  him  when 
he  was  going  to  assume  the  duties  of  the  office.  He  remarked  that  he  should 
take  possession  the  next  morning  at  ten  o'clock,  which  would  be  the  22d  ;  and 
I  think  in  that  connection  he  stated  that  he  had  issued  some  order  in  regard  to 
the  observance  of  the  day  ;  but  of  that  I  am  not  quite  sure.  I  remarked  to 
him  that  I  should  be  up  at  that  end  of  the  avenue  the  next  day,  and  he  asked 
me  to  come  in  and  see  him.  I  asked  him  where  I  would  find  him,  and  he  said 
in  the  Secretary's  room,  up  stairs.  I  told  him  I  would  be  there.  Said  he,  "  Be 
there  punctual  at  ten  o'clock."  Said  I,  "  You  are  going  to  take  possession  to- 
morrow i"  "Yes."  Said  I,  "  Suppose  Stanton  objects  to  it — resists."  "Well," 
said  he,  "  I  expect  to  meet  force  by  force  "  or  "  use  force." 

JMr.  CoNKLiNG.  Repeat  that. 

The  WiTNKSS.  I  asked  him  what  he  would  do  if  Stanton  objected  or  resisted. 
He  said  he  would  use  force  or  resort  to  force.  Said  I,  "  Suppose  he  bars  the 
doorsi"  His  reply  was,  "1  will  break  them  down."  I  think  that  was  about 
all  the  conversation  that  we  had  there  at  that  time  in  that  connection. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butlkr  : 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  about  being  there  at  the  time? 

A.   He  told  me  to  be  there  at  10  o'clock,  if  I  came. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  further  in  the  conversation  that  you  remember, 
by  you  to  him,  as  to  what  purpose  you  would  be  there  for  ? 

A.  Wtll,  to  witness  the  performance;  to  see  him  take  possession  of  the  office; 
nothing  more  than  that. 

Q.  AVcre  you  up  there  at  the  office  at  any  time  before  he  assumed  the  duties 
of  Sicretaiy  ad  interim  after  he  assumed  the  duties  of  Adjutant  General? 

The  Wl'i'.XKSS.  At  the  Secretary's  office? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkk.  At  the  Adjutant  General's  office. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  1  have  frequently  been  there. 

]\Ir.  CuK'i'i.s,  (to  Mr.  Managt'r  Bi'TLKR.)  Will  you  repeat  the  question? 

]\lr.  Man;iger  Butlkr.  The  ((uislion  is  whether  you  were  at  the  Adjutant 
General's  office  after  General  Tliomas  assumed  the  duties  of  Adjutant  General, 
and  before  he  attempted  to  assume  the  duties  of  Secretary  ad  interim.  You  say 
you  were  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  there  several  times;  I  do  not  recollect  how  many;  but 
two  or  three  times. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  211 

Q.  Pid  you  hear  liira  saying  anything  to  the  officers  and  clerks  of  the  depart- 
ment there  as  to  what  his  intention  was  when  he  came  in  command  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  we  object  to.  What  date  do  you  fix  that  inquiry  as 
applying  to,  i\[r.  Butler? 

^Ir.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  believe  he  was  restored  by  the  President  to  the 
Adjutant  General's  office  about  a  week,  if  I  remember  aright — you  will  correct 
nie  if  I  am  wrong — before  he  was  made  Secretary  ad  interim;  and  it  was  within 
that  week  that  he  made  these  declarations  which  I  now  offer. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Your  inquiry,  then,  is  for  declarations  made  antecedent  to  the 
action  of  the  President  of  which  you  have  given  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  My  inquiry  is  not  for  declarations.  My  inquiry  is  for 
attempts  on  his  part  to  seduce  the  officers  of  the  War  Department  to  his  allegi- 
ance by  telling  them  what  he  would  do  for  them  when  he  came  in  over  them ; 
precisely  as  Absalom  sat  at  the  gate  of  Israel  and  attempted  to  seduce  the  people 
from  their  allegiance  to  David,  the  king,  by  telling  them  what  he  would  do  for 
them  when  he  got  to  be  king.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Do  you  propose  that  in  your  question,  about  Absalom? 

!Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  I  put  that  in  my  illustration.     [Laughter] 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  object  to  the  questien  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  object. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Shall  I  reduce  it  to  writing  1 

The  Chief  Justice.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Edmunds,  [at  3  o'clock  p.  m.]  I  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  on 
this  trial  take  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice  resumed  the  chair  at  three  o'clock  and  fifteen  minutes, 
and  called  the  Senate  to  order. 

Hon.  Walter  A.  Burleigh's  examination  resumed: 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  With  the  President's  leave,  I  will  withdraw  the 
question  I  put  for  a  moment,  in  order  to  put  another  which  I  think  will  not  be 
objected  to.  [To  the  witness.]  I  observe,  Mr.  Burleigh — I  did  not  observe  at 
the  moment,  but  I  have  observed  since — that  you  did  not  answer  one  part  of 
my  first  question  to-day,  which  was,  whether  anything  was  said  by  Thomas  at 
that  conversation  as  to  what  orders  he  had  received  from  the  President  1 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  covered  by  our  previous  objection. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Certainly;  it  is  the  same  thing;  part  of  the  same 
question.     [To  the  witness.]     Will  you  ans\yer1 

A.  During  the  conversation  General  Thomas,  after  stating,  in  reply  to  my 
inquiry,  that  he  would  use  force  if  necessary,  stated  that  he  had  been  required 
or  ordered  by  the  President  to  take  charge  of  the  War  Department,  and  he  was 
bound  to  obey  the  President,  as  his  superior  or  superior  officer. 

Q.  Did  that  come  in  before  or  after  he  spoke  of  force  in  the  conversation  ? 

A.  It  was  in  connection  with  the  force,  and  it  was  repeated,  also,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  breaking  of  the  door  to  Avhich  I  have  alluded.  I  thought  I  men- 
tioned it ;  but  perhaps  I  did  not. 

]\rr.  jManager  Butler.  I  now  offer  the  question  which  was  objected  to. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Q.  Shortly  before  this  conversation  about  which  you  have  testified,  and  after  the  President 
restored  Major  General  Thomas  to  the  office  of  Adjutant  Geueral,  if  you  know  the  fact  that 
he  was  so  restored,  were  you  present  in  the  War  Department,  and  did  you  hear  Thomas 
make  any  statements  to  the  officers  and  clerks,  or  either  of  them,  beloncfin^  to  the  War 
Office,  as  to  the  rules  and  orders  of  Mr.  Stanton  or  of  the  otfice  which  lie,  Tiiomas,  would 
revoke,  relax,  or  rescind  in  favor  of  such  ofticers  and  employes  when  he  had  control  of  the 
affairs  therein  ?  If  so,  state  when,  as  near  as  you  can,  it  was  such  conversation  occurred, 
and  state  all  he  said  as  nearly  as  you  can. 


212  .  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THP:    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  counsel  for  the  President  object  to  that  question  as  irrele- 
vant and  immaterial  to  any  issue  in  this  cause,  and  as  not  to  be  brought  in  evi- 
dence against  the  President  by  any  support  given  by  the  testimony  ah-eady  in, 
which  would,  under  any  ruling  of  this  court,  or  on  any  principle  of  law,  permit 
these  declarations  or  statements  of  General  Thomas  made  to  the  clerks  of  the 
War  Department  antecedent  to  the  time  of  the  issue  of  the  orders  by  tlic  Presi- 
dent, which  are  in  evidence,  as  to  what  he,  Thomas,  would  do  when  he,  Thomas, 
if  at  all,  should  become  Secretary  of  War. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  desire  to  argue  this  question, 
for  the  reason  that  I  think  it  falls  within  the  question  last  discussed.  If  Thomas, 
as  was  the  ground  we  put  the  last  question  upon,  was  a  co-conspirator  with  the 
President,  how  can  either  my  learned  friends  on  the  other  side  or  the  Senate 
know  when  that  conspiracy  commenced  ?  You  will  observe  the  question  carries 
with  it  this  state  of  facts  :  Thomas  had  been  removed  from  the  office  of  Adjutant 
General  for  many  years  under  President  Lincoln  under  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Stanton  of  the  War  Office.  That  is  a  fact  known  to  all  men  who  know  the 
history  of  the  wax.  Just  before  he  made  him  Secretary  of  War  ad  iyiterim,  the 
President  restored  Thomas  to  the  War  Office  as  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  army. 
That  was  the  first  step  to  get  him  in  condition  to  make  a  Secretary  of  War  of 
him.  That  was  the  first  performance  of  the  President,  the  first  act  in  the 
drama.  He  ha,d  to  take  a  disgraced  officer,  and  take  away  his  disgrace,  and 
put  him  into  the  Adjutant  General's  office,  from  which  he  had  been  by  the  action 
of  President  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Stanton  suspended  for  years,  in  order  to  get  a  fit 
instrument  on  which  to  operate  ;  get  him  in  condition.  That  was  part  of  the 
training  for  the  next  stage.  Having  g(^t  him  in  that  condition,  he  being  suffi- 
ciently virulent  toward  Mr.  Stanton  for  having  suspended  him  from  the  office  of 
Adjutant  General,  the  President  then  is  ready  to  appoint  him  Secretary  ad 
interim,  which  he  does  within  two  or  three  days  thereafter. 

We  charge  that  the  whole  procedure  shows  the  conspiracy.  Here  is  the 
taking  up  of  this  disgraced  officer  and  restoring  him  to  a  position  in  the  War 
Office  when  he  was  a  knowai  enemy  of  jMr.  Stanton's,  feeling  aggrieved, 
undoubtedly,  that  Mr.  Stanton  had  deposed  him,  and  putting  him  in  there  so 
that  he  might  have  some  official  station ;  and  then,  after  having  done  that,  Mr*. 
Thomas  goes  to  seducing  clerks  to  get  them  ready  to  receive  him  when  he 
should  be  brought  into  the  War  Office  itself  as  its  head.  Now,  I  propose  to 
ehow  his  acts,  the  acts  of  one  of  these  co-conspirators,  clnstering  about  the  point 
of  time  just  before  the  peri(>d  when  he  was  going  to  break  down  the  doors  of 
this  office  with  crowbars  and  axes  and  force,  as  has  been  testified  as  he  said  he 
was,  that  he  was  trying  to  seduce  the  clerks  and  employes  from  their  allegiance. 
We  insist  it  is  all  a  part  of  one  transaction,  and  entirely  comes  wit'nin  the  ruling 
which  has  jn.-^t  been  made.  I  believe  1  have  stated  the  matter  as  the  miuiagers 
desired  I  should. 

JMr.  EvAKTS.  The  question  which  led  to  the  introduction  of  this  witness's 
statements  of  General  Thomas's  statements  to  him,  of  his  intentions,  and  of  the 
President's  instructions  to  him,  Geiieral  Thomas,  was  based  upon  the  claim  that 
the  order  of  the  President  of  the  21st  of  February,  upon  Mr.  Stanton  for 
removal,  and  u{)on  General  Thomas  to  take  possession  of  the  otHce,  created  find 
proved  a  conspiracy  ;  and  that  thereafter,  upon  that  proof,  declarations  and 
intentions  were  to  be  given  in  evidence.  That  step  has  been  gained,  and,  in  the 
judgment  of  this  honorable  court,  in  conformity  with  the  rules  of  law  and  of 
evidence.  That  being  gained,  it  is  similarly  argued  that. if,  on  a  conspiracy 
proved,  you  can  introihice  declarations  made  thereafter,  by  the  same  rule  you 
can  introduce  declarations  ina(hi  theretofore  ;  and  that  is  the  only  argument 
which  is  presented  to  the  court  for  the  admission  of  this  evidence. 

So  far  as  the  statements  of  the  learned  manager  relate  to  the  office,  the  posi- 
tion, the  character,  and  the  conduct  of  General  Thomas,  it  is  sufficient  for  me  to 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  213 

say  thfit  not  one  particle  of  evidence  lias  been  p;iven  in  this  cause  l)earin<^  ixpon 
any  one  of  those  topics.  If  General  Thomas  has  been  a  disgraced  officer  ;  if 
these  aspersions,  these  revilings  are  just,  they  are  not  justified  by  any  evidence 
before  this  court.  And  if,  as  matter  of  fact,  a])plicable  to  the  situation  upon 
■nhich  this  proof  is  soiight  to  be  introduced,  the  former  employments  of  CTcneral 
Thomas,  and  the  recent  restoration  of  him  to  the  active  duties  of  Adjutant  (ilen- 
eral  are  pertinent,  let  them  be  proved;  and  then  we  shall  have  at  least  the  basis 
of  fact  of  General  Thomas's  previous  lelatious  to  the  War  Department,  to  Mr. 
Stanton,  and  to  the  office  of  Adjutant  General. 

And  now,  having  pointed  out  to  this  honorable  court  that  the  decla-ations 
sought  to  be  given  in  evidence  of  General  Thomas  to  affect  the  President  with 
his  intentions  are  confessedly  of  a  period,  antecedent  to  the  date  to  which  any 
evidence  whatever  before  this  court  brings  the  President  and  General  Thomas 
in  connection,  I  might  leave  it  safely  there.  But  what  is  there  in  the  nature  of 
the  general  proof  sought  to  be  introduced  that  should  affect  the  President  of  the 
United  States  with  any  i-esponsibility  for  these  general  and  vague  statements  of 
an  officer  of  what  he  might  or  could  or  would  do,  if  thereafter  he  should  come 
into  the  possession  of  power  over  the  department  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bixgham.  I  desire  to  say  a  word  or  two  in  reply.  I  am  will- 
ing to  concede  that  any  question  beyond  what  may  have  been  said  by  one  who 
is  shown  to  have  entered  into  a  conspiracy  before  the  transaction  is  not  admissi- 
ble. I  concede  it,  however,  subject  to  this  exception  :  that  t"he  Senate  being 
the  triers  of  the  fact  as  well  as  the  law,  will  remember  that  the  rule  of  evidence 
has  been  so  extended  on  very  similar  occasions  in  courts  of  justice  as  to  allow 
of  declarations  of  this  sort  so  shortly  anterior  to  the  time  in  which  the  con- 
spiracy is  shown  to  have  been  actually  entered  into  to  go  to  the  jury  and  allow 
them  to  determine  what  weight  ought  to  be  attached  to  them.  That  is  the 
principle  upon  which  the  question  is  put.  It  is  qualified  by  the  words  "  shortly 
before,  '  Suppose  it  were  within  two  or  three  days,  and  the  act  done  on  the 
part  of  the  co-conspirator  was  an  act  tending  to  bring  about  the  result  sought  to 
be  accomplished  by  that  which  was  afterward  mutually  agreed  upon  between 
them  ;  is  there  any  one  here  to  doubt  that  it  is  evidence  tending  to  show  that 
beyond  the  facts,  so  far  as  they  have  been  traced,  some  understandi:ig,  some 
arrangement  was  entered  into,  and,  if  you  please,  a  voluntary  one,  on  the  part 
of  the  man  who  afterward  became  by  solemn  agreement  a  party  to  the  conspir- 
acy— a  voiuntai'y  act  committed  on  his  part  in  order  to  commend  him  to  the 
chief  in  the  conspiracy  itself.  The  general  rule  as  stated  in  the  book  would 
admit,  I  am  satisfied,  of  that  latitude  of  construction.  I  I'ead  from  Roscoe's 
Criminal  Evidence,  p.  88  : 

The  evidence  in  conspiracy  is  wider  tlmn,  perhaps,  in  any  otlier  case,  ijther  principles  as 
well  as  that  under  discussion  tending  to  give  greater 'latitude  in  proving  this  otfeuce.  Taken 
by  themselves  the  acts  of  a  conspiracy  are  rarely  of  an  unequivocally  guilty  character,  and 
they  can  only  be  properly  estimated  wlieu  connected  with  all  the  surrounding  circumstances. 

Not  ou\y,  as  in  the  cases  betbre  mentioned,  may  the  acts  and  declarations  of  the  prisoner 
liimself  on  former  occasions  be  admitted  when  referable  to  the  point  in  issue,  but  also  the 
acts  and  declarations  of  other  persons — 

Meaning,  of  course,  on  former  occasions,  supplying  the  ellipsis — 

with  whom  he  has  conspired,  may,  if  referable  to  the  issue,  be  given  in  evidence  against 
him. 

That  is  the  general  rule;  and  yet  I  admit  if  it  were  so  framed  as  not  in  pro- 
bability to  connect  itself  with  the  transaction,  it  ought  not  to  be  received;  but 
the  question  is  so  restricted — and  we  do  not  stand  here  to  claim  it  unless  it  falls 
out  on  the  evidence  that  it  is  nearly  connected  in  point  of  time  with  the  opera- 
tions of  these  parties — and  the  testimony  itself  manifestly,  as  is  explained  by 
the  manager  on  the  pari  of  the  House  who  has  put  the  question,  indicates  a 
desire  and  purpose  on  the  part  of  Thomas  to  make  his  arrangements  with  the 
employes  of  the  War  Department. 


214  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Chief  Justicr.  TJio  Chief  Justice  is  of  opinion  that  no  sufficient  foun- 
dation  has  been  laid  for  tlie  introduction  of  this  testimony,  lie  Avill  submit 
the  question  to  the  Senate  with  parent  pleasure  if  any  senator  desires  it.  Tiie 
questipn  is  ruled  to  be  inadmissible. 

]\Ir,  Howard.   Mr.  President 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  respectfully 

The  Chief  Jusrn  e.  The  senator  from  Michigan.  Does  the  senator  desire 
the  question  to  be  taken  by  the  Senate  1 

Mr.  Howard.  Yes,  Mr.  President. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  was  about  rising  to  ask  the  Senate  if  they  would  not 
relax  the  rule,  and  when  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  llepresenta- 
tives  and  the  people  have  a  question  which  they  deem  of  consequence  to  their 
case  allow  that  to  be  put  to  the  Senate  upon  the  motion  of  the  House  of  llepre- 
sentatives. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Q.  Shortly  before  tliis  couversatiort  about  which  vou  have  testified,  and  after  the  President 
restored  Mnjor  General  Thomas  to  the  oflice  of  Adjutant  General,  if  you  know  the  fact  that 
be  was  so  restored,  were  yon  present,  in  the  "\^'ar  Department,  and  did  you  hear  Thomas 
make  any  statement  to  the  officers  and  ch-rks,  or  either  of  them,  Iteloiitjing  to  the  AVar 
Office,  as  to  the  rules  and  orders  of  Mr.  Stanton,  or  of  the  office  which  he,  Thomas,  would  re- 
voke, relax,  or  rescind  in  favor  of  such  officers  and  employes  when  he  had  control  of  the 
affairs  therein  ?  If  so,  state  as  near  as  you  can  when  it  was  such  conversation  occurred,  and 
state  all  he  said  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is,  Shall  the  question  proposed  by  Mr. 
Manager  Butler  be  put  to  the  witness? 

Mr.  How^\RD.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  28,  nays 
22;  as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conklingf,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Cragiu,  Drake,  Henderson,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Pat- 
terson of' New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer, 
Tipton,  Trumbull,  and  Wilson — 28. 

Navs— Messrs.  Bayard,  Jkickalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Edmimds,  Ferry,  Fessonden, 
Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Norton, 
Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Sherman,  Van  Winkle,  Yickers,  Willcy,  and  Williams — 2'^. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Harlan,  Saulsbury,  Wade,  and  Yates — 4. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  28  and  the  nays  22.  So 
the  Senate  decides  that  the  question  shall  be  put  to  the  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  "With  the  leave  of  the  President,  I  will  put  this  ques^ 
tion  by  portions.  [To  the  witness.]  Shortly  before  the  conversation  about 
which  you  have  testified,  and  after  the  President  restored  Major  Gener.-i^  Thomas 
to  the  office  of  Adjutant  General,  if  you  know  the  fact  that  he  was  so  restored, 
were  you  present  in  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was. 

By  the  Chief  Justice  : 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  fact  that  he  was  so  restored  ? 
A.  He  told  me  so.     He  was  acting  in  the  office. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  'Did  you  hear  Thomas  make  any  statement  to  the  officers  and  clerks, 
or  either  of  them,  belonging  to  the  War  Office,  as  to  the  rules  and  orders  of  Mr. 
Stanton,  or  of  the  office,  which  he,  I'homas,  would  revoke,  rela.x,  or  rescind  in 
favor  of  such  officers  and  employes  when  he  had  control  therein?  If  so,  state 
when  this  conversation  was  as  near  as  you  can. 

A.  Soon  after  General  Thomas  was  restored  to  his  position  as  Adjutant  Gen- 
eral X  hud  occasiou  to  go  to  bis  office  to  transact  some  business  with  him ;  and 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  215 

after  transacting  the  business  I  invited  him  to  take  a  short  walk  with  me.     The 
general  remarked  that  he  had  made  an  arrangement 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Butler,  your  question  was  "when  1" 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr,  (to  the  witness.)  When  was  this? 

A.  Soon  after  General  Thomas's  restoration  to  office  as  Adjutant  General. 

Q.  llow  long  before  the  time  Avhen  he  was  appointed  Secretary  of  War  ? 

A.  I  should  think  not  more  than  a  week  or  ten  days.  I  have  no  definite 
means  of  knowing  now. 

Q,  Go  on. 

A.  He  remarked  to  me 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Wait  a  moment,  Mr.  Witness.  I  understood  your  question, 
Mr.  Butler,  allowed  by  the  Sen-ate,  to  refer  to  statements  made  by  General 
Thomas  at  the  War  Ofiice,  as  heard  by  this  witness,  to  clerks  there  of  the 
department.  The  witness  is  now  proceeding  to  state  what  took  place  in  a  walk 
between  him  and  General  Thomas. 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  we  had  not  taken  the  walk.  I  am  not  in  the  habit 
of  testifying  before  courts,  and  you  will  pardon  me  for  a  little  latitude. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  He  had  not  said  that  they  took  the  walk. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  This,  I  understand,  is  only  inducement,  Mr.  Butle^'. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.     The  inducement  to  the  conversation. 

The  Witness.  The  general  remarked  to  me  that  he  had  made  an  arrange- 
ment to  have  all  the  heads  or  officers  in  charge  of  the  different  departments  of 
the  office  come  in  with  their  clerks  that  morning,  and  he  wanted  to  address 
them.  He  stated  that  the  rules  which  had  been  adopted  for  the  government  of 
the  clerks  by  his  predecessor  were  of  a  very  arbitrary  character,  and  he  pro- 
posed to  relax  them.  I  suggested  to  him  that  perhaps  I  had  better  go.  Said 
he,  "No;  not  at  all ;  remain;"  and  I  sat  down,  and  he  had  some  three  or  four 
officers — four  or  five  perhaps — come  in,  and  each  one  brought  in  a  room-full  of 
clerks,  and  he  made  an  address  to  each  company  as  they  came  in,  statingto 
them  that  he  did  not  propose  to  hold  them  strictly  to  the  letter  of  the  instruc- 
tions ;  but  when  they  wanted  to  go  out  they  could  go  out,  and  when  they  wanted 
to  come  in  they  could  come  in ;  that  he  regarded  them  all  as  gentlemen,  and 
supposed  they  would  do  their  duty,  and  he  should  require  them  to  do  their  duty ; 
but  so  far  as  their  little  indulgences  were  concerned — I  suppose  such  as  going 
out  across  the  street  or  something  of  that  kind — he  did  not  propose  to  interfere 
with  them ;  all  he  expected  was  that  they  would  do  their  duty.  I  waited  until 
he  concluded,  and  we  took  the  walk,  and  I  came  away.  I  remarked  to  the 
general  he  would  make  a  very  fine  politician. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  as  to  the  character  of  the  orders  that  existed  before? 

A.  He  said  that  they  were  very  harsh  and  arbitrary — nothing  more  than  that, 
that  I  know  of — and  he  proposed  to  relax  them. 

Q,.  You  have  told  us  that  you  had  known  General  Thomas  for  some  time. 
Had  he  been  off  duty  as  Adjutant  General  of  the  army  for  some  time  before 
this? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long? 

A.  I  am  not  able  to  tell  you;  some  two  or  three  years,  I  should  think. 

Ml-.  Sta.xbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  object  to  this  mode  of  proving 
orders  for  removal. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  not  pre^s  it  a  hair.     I  will  get  the  order. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Especially  do  we  object  when  it  is  said  to  disgrace  an 
officer.     We  would  rather  see  the  proof  than  hear  the  assertion. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Does  the  gentleman,  when  he  makes  the  gesture 
accompanying  those  words,  mean  my  assertion  ?  For  I  am  going  to  prove  it  upon 
the  oath  of  a  witness. 


216  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

]\rr.  Stanhkry.  Is  the  gentleman  speaking  to  me?  What  was  the  quea- 
tion  1 

Mr.  JManager  Butler.  Whether  you  mean  my  assertion,  or  the  assertion 
of  the  witness  ? 

The  Chikf  Justice.  This  controversy  does  not  appear  to  have  any  proper 
relation  to  the  case  on  trial. 

iVfr.  ^lanager  EurLER,  (to  the  witness.)  Had  he  been  away  from  the  city, 
and  not  in  the  Adjutant  General's  oilice  for  a  considerable  period  of  time? 

A.  Yps,  sir;  he  had  been  sent  south. 

Jlr.  Stanbery.  That  will  not  do. 

Mr.  ^lanager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  How  lately  had  he  returned  to  the 
office  when  he  made  this  speech  ?  ' 

A.  I  am  not  able  to  say ;  but  a  very  few  days. 

Q.  Since  you  had  the  conversation  about  breaking  down  the  doors  of  the 
War  Otiice  by  force,  have  you  seen  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have. 

Q,  Were  you  called  upon  by  the  managers  to  give  your  testimony  in  their 
room  ? 

A.  I  was.' 

Q.  Did  you  do  so  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  it  taken  down  in  shoi't-hand  ? 

A.  I  am  not  able  to  say  how  it  was  taken  down  ;   I  did  not  see  it. 

Q.  After  it  was  taken  down  after  you  gave  it,  was  General  Thomas  called  in  1 

A.  He  told  me  he  was  to  be  call<?d  in.  I  did  not  see  him  go  in.  I  saw  him 
on  the  floor  of  the  House,  and  he  told  me  he  had  been  summoned  and  was  Eroiao: 
up  as  soon  as  some  one  came  for  him. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  after  he  had  been  up  ?  < 

A.  I  did. 

Q    What  did  he  tell  you  as  to  your  testimony  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  we  object  to. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  managers.)  The  honorable  managers  will  reduce 
the  question  to  writing. 

Mr.  ilanager  Butler.  I  have  heard  the  objection.  I  propose  to  show,  if  I 
am  allowed,  that  Mr.  Burleigh's  testimony  before  the  managers,  which  I  propose 
to  put  in  his  hand  and  identify  in  a  moment,  was  read  to  General  Thomas,  con- 
taining exactly  what  he  has  testified  here,  and  General  Thomas  said  it  was  all 
true,  and  never  informi'd  Mr.  Burleigh  that  it  was  not  true.  I  do  this  by  way 
of  settling  the  question,  that  there  can  be  no  mistake  about  it 

Mr.  Stanbery.  For  what  purpose? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  manager  will  reduce  his  question  to  writing,  it 
being  olji.'cted  to. 

]\lr.  ]\Ianager  Butler.  Well,  I  will  not  press  it  to  take  time  by  an  argument. 
(To  the  witness.)  Have  you  had  any  conversation  siuce,  with  him,  as  to  th!.-} 
conversation  about  which  you  have  testilied  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  What  has  he  said  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery,  Mr.  Evarts,  and  Mr.  Curtis.  That  we  object  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  propose  to  put  in  subsequent  declarations  confirming 
exactly  the  df.clarations  which  have  been  allowed  to  be  put  in.  I  suppose  I 
can  put  in  tl;e  same  declarations  twice. 

The  Chij:f  Justice.  The  question  will  be  reduced  to  writing,  if  objected  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  1  will  ask  a  single  question  before  that,  so  as  to  fix 
the  date.  (To  the  witness.)  When  did  you  see  him,  as  near  as  you  can 
recollect  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  217 

A.  I  have  seen  liim  nearly  every  day  since  then. 

Q.  At  any  time  did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  about  this  conver- 
sation as  to  which  you  have  testified  1 

A.  I  have  had. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  You  mean  the  conversation  witli  the  ch^-ks? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  I  mean  the  conversation  about  breaking 
down  the  doors  of  the  War  Office  by  force. 

The  Witness.  I  have,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Do  you  still  object,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Stambery.  Let  us  see  your  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  put  the  question.  The  question  is,  at  the  time 
when  you  have  seen  him  since  has  he  restated  to  you  any  portion  or  all  of  that 
conversation  about  breaking  down  the  doors  of  the  War  Office  ] 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  we  object  to  as  leading,  among  other  things, 

Mr.  Stanrery.   It  is  clearly  a  leading  question.  ' 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  put  it  in  this  form  :  Since  the  first  conversation 
has  he  restated  any  portion  of  that  conversation  ;  and,  if  so,  what  portion  1 

Mr.  Staxbery.  We  object  to  that  as  leading. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  object,  if  the  court  please,  that  the  question  sliould  be 
what  subsequent  conversations  he  has  had,  if  they  are  to  be  given  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well ;  to  save  all  objection,  then,  I  will  ask  this 
question  :  What  did  he  state  to  you,  if  anything,  as  to  the  conversation  which 
he  had  })reviously  had  with  you  about  breaking  down  the  War  Office] 

Mr.  Evarts.  That  we  object  to.  Ask  what  conversations  the  witness  has 
had  with  him  since,  if  you  wish  to  give  them  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  content  with  that,  if  that  is  not  objected  to. 
(To  the  witness.)  What  conversations  have  you  had  with  him  on  that  subject 
since  1 

Mr.  Evarts.  That  we  object  to  as  not  admissible  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Timco  Danaos  ct  donaferentcs.  I  shall  not  alter  my 
question  again. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question,  being  objected  to,  will  be  reduced  to 
writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler  reduced  his  question  to  writing,  and  read  it,  as  follows  : 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  since  the  first  one,  and  since  his  appoint- 
ment as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  with  Thomas,  when  he  said  anything 
about  using  force  in  getting  into  the  War  Office,  or  in  any  way  or  manner 
reasserting  his  former  conversation'?    and  if  so,  state  what  he  said. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  object  to  that  question  ? 

Mr.  Evarts.  We  object  to  the  question,  if  the  court  please. 

The  Chief  Justice.     Do  you  desire  to  be  heard  in  support  of  the  objection  ? 

Mr.  Evarts.  Very  briefly.  The  acts  of  the  President  and  the  acts  of  Gen- 
eral Thomas,  in  pursuance  of  any  authority  from  the  President  or  otherwise, 
have  been  given  in  evidence.  That  testimony  is  very  limited.  What  occuixed 
between  General  Thomas  and  Mr.  Stanton  at  the  War  Office  is  the  only  meas- 
ure and  extent  of  evidence  bearing  upon  the  actual  conduct  either  of  the  Pres- 
ident, through  his  agent,  or  of  the  agent.  It  was  allowed  to  give  evidence  of 
this  appointee's  declarations  as  to  what  he  intended  to  do,  and  that  evidence  has 
been  given.  Now,  statements  after  the  action  was  complete  as  to  what  his 
intentions  were  before  cannot  be  at  all  material,  for  intentions  not  executed  ia 
tlie  subsequent  action  certainly  are  not  material.  But  this  is  still  more  objection- 
able as  being  but  an  alleged  repetition,  after  the  transaction  was  complete,  of 
what  his  intentions  had  been  before,  or  rather  relative  to  what  he  said  about 
what  his  intentions  had  been  before.  It  is  enough  to  proye  what  his  intentions 
had  been  before  under  the  latitude  which  has  been  allowed  by  the  court  to 
introduce  that  evidence,  to  wit,  the  declarations  made  to  this  witness;  but  Gen- 


218  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

eral  Thomas's  statements  afierward  as  to  wliat  previously  lie,  General  Thomas, 
had  stated  as  to  what  his  intentions  were,  is  not  admissible  within  any  ruk'S  of 
evidence. 

Mr.  ]\Ianagor  Butler.  Mr..  Chief  Justice,  I  understand  the  Senate  by  sol- 
emn decision  have  decided  that  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  being  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim,  under  the  circumstances,  was  so  far  in  conspiracy  or  in  agree- 
ment Avith  the  President,  was  so  far  his  servant  or  agent,  that  in  the  course  of 
the  proceeding  in  which  he  was  engaged  his  acts  might  be,  and  his  declarations 
were,  evidence.  That  decision,  of  course,  covers  all  acts  and  all  declarations. 
We  have  shown  that  on  the  night  of  the  21st  of  February  General  Thomas 
said:  "I  am  going  up  to-morrow  morning  with  axes  and  force,  bills  and  bows, 
to  go  into  the  office,  break  open  the  door ;  I  am  going  in  by  force  ;  I  am  going 
to  obey  my  orders;  I  am  going  to  obey  the  orders  of  the  President ;  lam 
going  in  with  force,  and  I  am  going  to  break  down  the  doors  if  they  are  not 
opened  to  me."  Then  it  is  also  in  evidence  that  Mr.  Thomas  went  up  the  next 
morning,  not  at  10  o'clock,  but  about  half  past  11,  in  a  much  more  mild  and 
quiet  manner  than  he  had  threatened  over  niglit  to  do. 

The  argument  will  be  raised  by  the  counsel  for  the  President,  "  This  was 
mere  talk  of  IMr.  Thomas,  because  if  he  meant  anything  by  it,  or  if  the  Pres- 
ident had  so  ordered  him,  if  it  was  serious  really,  why  did  he  not  the  next 
morning  go  up  there  with  force,  either  with  the  Maryland  militia  or  th(;  Virginia 
militia,  or  some  other  proper  force  with  which  Mr.  Thomas  should  deal,  or 
with  a  portion  of  the  regular  army  of  the  United  States  ?"  That  is  the  argu- 
ment, and  as  he  did  not  these  declarations  meant  nothing.  I  want  to  show  that 
afterwards  Mr.  Burleigh  asked  him,  "  General  Thomas,  I  went  up  there  to  see 
the  performance  and  it  did  not  come  off  according  to  contract ;  what  is  the  mean- 
ing of  this  ?  You  did  not  go  and  break  in  ;  I  wanted  to  see  that  go  on  ;  I  was 
going  to  stand  by  you,"  or  words  to  that  effect :  "  I  went  there  to  give  you  my 
countenance,"  or  something  like  that ;  and  thereupon  Mr.  Thomas  said  :  "  Well, 
the  reason  I  did  not  was  that  I  was  arresied  b}'  the  courts  and  held  to  bail,  and 
I  could  not.  I  concluded  it  was  not  best  to  use  force  ;  I  did  not  dare  do  it." 
Is  not  that  perfectly  competent  to  meet  this  argument  of  the  counsel,  and  to 
show  what  prevented  the  outbreak  of  a  civil  war ;  that  it  was  not  the  Presi- 
dent ;  it  was  not  Ids  co-conspirator ;  it  was  not  their  malignity  nor  want  of  it ; 
it  was  not  their  will  or  want  of  it;  but  it  was  the  fortunate  intervention  of  the 
tribunal  of  justice.  That  is  the  point  upon  which  we  propose  to  put  in  this 
question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question  as  follows  : 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  since  the  first  one,  and  since  his  appoint 
ment  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  with   Thomas,  where  he  has  said   any- 
thing about  using  force  in  getting  into  the  War  Office,  or  in  any  way  or  manner 
reasserting  the  former  conversation  ?  and  if  so,  state  what  he  said. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  the  Chief  Justice  is  of  opinion  that  within 
the  spirit  of  the  decision  just  made  by  the  Senate,  this  question  is  admissi- 
ble. Does  any  senator  desire  that  the  question  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Sen- 
ate ?     If  not,  the  (juestion  will  be  put. 

Mr.  Manager  IUitlek,  (to  the  witness.)  Will  you  now  state?  Mr.  Burleigh, 
you  say  you  have  had  many  conversations.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
one  special  conversation 

Mr.  Cuktis.  I  suppose  the  question  should  be  put  to  him. 

Jlr.  IManager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Have  you  had  any  conversation 
since  the  first  one,  and  since  his  ajipointmeut  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim, 
with  Thomas,  Avherein  he  said  anything  about  using  force  in  getting  into  the 
War  Office,  or  in  any  way  or  manner  reasserting  the  former  couversatiou  ?  and 
if  so,  state  what  he  said. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  '219 

■  A.  Some  time  in  the  fore  part  of  last  week  I  met  General  Thomas  and  we. 
were  talking  over  this  question,  It  had  become  noised  about,  and  he  told  me 
that  the  only  thing  that  prevented  his  taking  possession  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment that  morning  was  his  arrest  by  the  United  States  marshal,  who  called  on 
him  at  a  very  unusual  hour,  I  think  about  the  time  he  was  getting  out  of  bed. 

Q.  You  have  stated  what  he  said.  Now  say  what  you  stated  to  him.  Give 
us  the  whole  conversation  as  well  as  you  can  on  that  occasion. 

The  Witness.  This  last  occasion. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  not  within  your  question. 

Mr.  StAiXBKRY.  You  are  now  asking  for  declarations  of  Mr.  Burleigh. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  asking  for  both  parts  of  the  conversation,  which 
I  never  yet  heard  objected  to  in  a  court  of  justice. 

Mr.  Stanbrrv.  You  ask  for  declarations  of  this  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  What  you  said  to  Thomas,  and  he 
said  to  you,  part  of  which  you  have  just  given  us. 

The  Witness.  I  do  not  now  recollect  the  precise  language  which  I  used  to 
him.  It  was,  however,  in  connection  with  my  having  gone  up  there,  and  that 
the  feast  to  which  I  was  invited  or  the  performance  did  not  come  off;  and  he  gave 
me  as  a  reason  for  it  that  he  was  arrested  by  the  United  States  marshal  and  taken 
down  before  Judge  Cartter's  court,  otherwise  he  should  have  gone  in  and  taken 
possession  of  the  office,  as  he  told  me  he  would. 

Q.  When  was  this  last  conversation,  as  near  as  you  can  tell  ! 

A.  1  think  it  was  about  the  first  of  last  week. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Referring  to  the  interview  you  had  with  General  Thomas  in  the  Adjutant 
General's  office  prior  to  his  appointment  as  Secretary  of  War,  had  you  business 
there  with  him  as  Adjutant  General  1 

A.  I  had  business  with  the  Adjutant  General.  I  can  state  what  it  was,  if 
you  desire  to  know. 

Q.  No  ;  I  do  not  care  about  that.  But  you  went  there  to  see  the  Adjutant 
General  on  business  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  say  you  had  heard  before  that  that  General  Thomas  was  restored 
to  his  office  ? 

A.  I  tliink  I  had  heard  it  the  day  before,  and  I  think  I  heard  it  from  himself. 

Q.  While  you  were  there  he  sent  for  the  heads  of  bureaus  and  their  clerks, 
did  he  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Whom  did  he  first  send  for  ? 

A.  I  cannot  name  them  now.  In  fact,  I  am  not  sufficiently  familiar  with 
their  names  to  tell. 

Q.  Who  first  came  in  ? 

A.  I  am  not  able  to  say.  Gemn-al  Williams  was  present.  I  do  not  know 
but  that  he  came  in  first,  and  I  do  not  know  as  he  did. 

Q.  Did  he  make  an  address  to  each  head  of  bureau  and  his  clerks  or  did  he 
talk  to  them  altogether  1 

A.  Each  one. 

Q.  In  -succession  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  addresses,  then,  did  he  make  to  separate  assemblies  ? 

A.  I  think  he  made  four  or  five.  I  did  not  count  them,  and  it  was  a  matter 
that  did  not  impress  itself  on  my  mind  very  much. 

Q.  Did  he  make  the  same  address  to  all  of  them  ? 

A.  Very  nearly  the  same. 


220  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  Now,  please  to  state  what  liis  address  was  to  each  of  them  that  he  made 
on  tliat  occasion. 

A,  I  can  only  give  it  to  you  in  a  very  vague  manner.  It  was  a  matter  that 
did  not  concern  me  very  much.  It  was  to  state  to  them  that  he  had  come  back 
and  assumed  the  duties  of  the  office  ;  that  he  was  g-lad  to  see  them  ;  that  he 
proposed  to  relax  somewhat  the  arbitrary  rules  ;  perhaps  he  did  not  denominate 
them  arbitrary  rules  ;  he  had  to  me  before  that ;  that  he  did  not  wish  to  hold 
them  up  to  so  strict  accountability  in  being  there  precisely  at  nine  o'clock,  and 
in  not  leaving  without  a  written  leave,  as  he  said  had  been  the  case  before.  He 
stated  to  them  that  he  should  expect  them  to  discharge  their  duty,  and  if  they 
did  that  it  was  all  he  cared  about. 

Q.  When  he  said  he  had  returned  to  his  office  what  office  did  you  understand 
him  as  returning  to  ? 

A.  Adjutant  G-eueral. 

Q  Yv^iien  he  gave  these  orders  to  these  heads  of  bureaus  and  their  clerks  did 
you  understand  him  to  be  giving  orders  as  Adjutant  General  1 

A.  1  did  not  understand  him  to  be  giving  orders  at  all,  but  it  was  a  mere 
address. 

Q.  Was  he  delivering  an  address  then  as  Adjutant  General  1 

A.  Certainly.    ■ 

Q.  In  reference  to  how  he  expected  to  carry  on  that  office  1 

A.  What  he  expected  of  them. 

Q.  You  do  not  mean  that  he  sent  for  all  the  employes  in  the  War  Depart* 
ment,  do  you? 

A.  I  think  he  told  me  that  he  directed  the  head  of  every  department  con- 
nected with  the  Adjutant  General's  office  to  come. 

Q.  But  not  those  connected  with  the  other  offices — those  of  the  Commissary 
General,  the  Quartermai>ter  General,  &c.  'i 

A.  No  ;  only  those  that  were  under  him. 

Q.  When  these  heads  of  bureaus  received  these  orders,  did  they  object  that 
he  had  no  right  to  give  them  such  orders,  or  did  they  thank  him  for  them  ? 

A.  I  heard  no  objection.     They  congratulated  him,  a  great  many  of  them. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  about  his  giving  them  any  other  orders,  or  giving  them 
to  any  other  than  his  own  officers,  those  under  him  as  Adjutant  General? 

A.  I  did  not  understand  it  in  any  other  way. 

Q.  Then  did  you  hear  or  s(je  anything  improper  at  that  time,  and  if  you  did 
let  us  know  what  it  was. 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  the  judge  of  what  is  proper  or  not  proper  in  the 
Adjutant  General's  office.     Nothing  occurred  that  was  very  offensive  to  me. 

Q.  Did  anythiug  occur  that  Avas  at  all  offensive  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Samuel  Wilkf.son  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  Do  you  know  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  General  of  the  United 
States  army  ? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him? 

A.  Ik'tween  six  and  seven  years. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  him  relative  to  the  change  in  the 
War  Department?  If  so,  state  as  near  as  you  can  when  it  was  and  what  it  was 
in  relation  to  that  change. 

A.  I  had  a  conversation  with  him  respecting  that  change  on  the  21st  day  of 
February. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  221 

A.  Between  one  and  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  At  the  War  Department,  in  liis  office. 

Q.  State  what  took  phice  at  that  interview. 

]Mr.  EvAR'i'S.  Do  you  propose  this  as  covered  by  the  former  ruling  ? 

Mr.  j\[anager  Butler.  Entirely  so,  after  he  had  his  order. 

The  Witness.  I  asked  liini  to  tell  me  what  had  occurred  that  morning 
between  him  and  the  Secretary  of  War  in  his  endeavor  to  take  possession  of 
the  AYar  Department.  He  hesitated  to  do  so  till  I  told  him  that  the  town  was 
filled  with  rumors  of  the  change  that  had  been  made,  of  the  removal  of  Mr 
Stanton  and  the  appointment  of  himself.  He  then  said  that  since  the  affair 
had  become  public  he  felt  relieved  to  speak  to  me  with  freedom  about  it.  He 
drew  from  liis  pocket  a  copy,  or  rather  the  original,  of  the  order  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  directing  him  to  take  possession  of  the  War  Department 
immediately.  He  told  me  that  he  had  taken  as  a  witness  of  his  action  General 
Williams,  and  had  gone  up  into  the  War  Department  and  had  shown  to  Edwin 
M.  Stanton  the  order  of  the  President,  and  liad  demanded,  by  virtue  of  that 
order,  the  possession  of  the  War  Department  and  its  books  and  papers.  He 
told  me  that  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  after  reading  the  order,  had  asked  him  if  he 
would  allow  to  him  sufficient  time  for  him  to  gather  together  his  books,  papers, 
and  other  personal  property  and  take  them  away  with  him  ;  that  he  told,  him 
that  he  would  allow  to  him  all  necessary  time  to  do  so,  and  had  then  withdrawn 
from  Mr.  Stanton's  room.  He  further  told  me,  that  day  being  Eriday,  that  the 
next  day  would  be  what  he  called  a  dies  non,  being  the  holiday  of  the  anniver- 
sary of  Washington's  birthday,  when  he  had  directed  that  the  War  Department 
should  be  closed;  that  the  day  thereafter  would  be  Sunday,  and  that  on  Monday 
morning  he  should  demand  possession  of  the  War  Department  and  of  its  prop- 
erty, and  if  that  demand  was  refused  or  resisted  he  should  ajjply  to  the  General- 
in- chief  of  the  army  for  a  force  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  take  possession  of  the 
War  Department ;  and  he  added  that  he  did  not  see  how  the  General  of  the 
army  could  refuse  to  obey  his  demand  for  that  force.  He  then  added  that  under 
the  order  that  the  President  had  given  to  him  he  had  no  election  to  pursue  any 
other  course  than  the  one  that  he  indicated  ;  that  he  was  a  subordinate  officer 
directed  by  an  order  from  a  superior  officer,  and  that  he  must  pursue  that 
course. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  afterward  and  have  conversation  with  him  on  the  subject  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Wlien  was  that  ? 

A.  That  evening. 

Q.   Where? 

A.  At  Willards'  hotel. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  there  ? 

A.  He  then  said  that  he  should  the  next  day  demand  possession  of  the  War 
Department,  and  that  if  the  demand  was  refused  or  resisted  he  shuuld  apply  to 
General  Grant  for  force  to  enable  him  to  take  possession,  and  he  alno  repeated 
his  declaration  that  he  could  not  see  how  General  Grant  could  refuse  to  obey 
that  demand  for  force. 

Q.  State  whether  these  were  earnest  conversations  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  Earnest  conversations  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir,  on  his  part  ? 

A.  If  you  mean  by  earnestness  that  he  meant  what  he  said 

Q.  Yes. 

A.  They  were  in  that  sense  earnest. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 
Q.  Are  you  connected  with  the  press  1 


222  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  am  a  journalist  by  profession. 

Q.  And  have  been  for  a  great  number  of  years  ? 

A.  A  great  number  of  years. 

Q.  Living  in  Washington  during  the  session  of  Congress  for  the  most  part  1 

A.  I  have  for  the  hxst  seven  years  lived  in  Washington  in  the  winter. 

Q.  You  say  that  General  Thomas  told  you  that,  under  the  order  of  the  Presi- 
dent, he  did  not  see  how  he  could  do  otherwise  than  he  had  stated  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Are  you  repeating  the  testimony  of  the  witness*? 

]\Ir.  EvARTS.  Yes. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  understood  him  to  say  "under  the  orders  of  the 
President." 

Mr.  Evarts.  I  understood  him  to  say  "  under  the  order." 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLER.  That  I  wanted  certain. 

The  Witness.  ''  Under  the  order,"  referring  to  the  original. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Paper? 

The  WiTiMESS.  The  original  paper. 

Q.  Nothing  else  ? 

A.  Nothing  else. 

Mr.  Evarts,  (to  Mr.  Manager  Butler.)  Now  you  are  answered. 

Mr.  Manager  13utler.  Entirely. 

Mr.  Evarts,  (to  the  witness  )  So  all  the  difference  between  the  conversation 
on  Friday  night  and  Friday  forenoon  was  that  at  night  he  proposed  to  do  what 
he  did  propose  to  do  on  Saturday,  and  in  the  forenoon  conversation  he  proposed 
to  do  it  on  Monday? 

A.   On  Monday. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything-  further  regarding  the  expected  holiday,  Saturday, 
except  that  that  would  be  a  dies  non  7 

A.  Nothing,  sir. 

Q.  No  orders  to  that  efifcct  were  referred  to  ? 

A.  Pardon  mc ;  he  told  me  that  he  had  issued  an  order  to  close  the  War 
Department  on  Saturday. 

Q.  That  he  had  himself? 

A.  That  he  had  himself  issued  an  order  to  close  the  War  Department  on 
Saturday. 

Q'.  As  Adjutant  General  ? 

A.  He  did  not  say  whether  he  had  done  that'  as  Adjutant  General  or  as 
Secretary  of  War. 

Q.  You  did  not  understand  anything  about  that  ? 

A.  He  simply  told  me  he  had  issued  an  order  to  close  the  War  Department 
on  Saturday. 

Q.  This  was  in  the  morning  conversation  1 

A.  It  was  in  the  afternoon  conversation  of  Friday. 

Q.  The  one  o'clock  conversation  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  when  that  order  had  been  issued  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know,  from  anything  said  in  that  conversation,  when  it  had 
been  issued  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

il.  Did  you  know,  from  anything  said  in  that  conversation,  by  -vrhom  it  had 
been  issued  other  than  that  it  was  by  him.  General  Thomas,  in  some  capacity  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  He  told  me  that  it  had  been  issued,  and  he  told  me  that  on 
Eriday. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  know,  or  then  understood,  it  might  have  been  issued  by 
him  as  Adjutant  General? 

A.  I  know  nothing  about  that. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  22  3 

Rc-examiiiedby  Mr.  Manager  Butlkr: 
Q.  In  fiitherof  these  conversations,  in  connection  witli  what  he  said,  did  he 
say  whotlier  he  was  Secretary  of  AVar,  or  did  lie  chiim  to  be  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir.     He  claimed  to  be  Secretary  of  War. 

George  AV.  Karsner  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Qnestion.  What  is  your  full  name  ? 

Answer.  George  Washington  Karsner. 

Q.  Of  what  place  are  you  a  citizen  1 

A.  Of  Delaware. 

Q.  What  county  1 

A.  New  Castle  county. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  ? 

A.  I  have  known  him  a  great  while  ;  I  think  I  have  known  him  since  a  short 
time  after  his  graduation  from  West  Point. 

Q.  Was  he  originally  from  the  same  county  with  youl 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  Washington  somewhere  about  the  1st  of  March  of  this 
year  1 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  the  9th  of  March  I  first  recollect  seeing  him  here. 

Q.  When  had  you  seen  him  prior  to  that  time  ? 

A.  Not  for  several  years.  I  cannot  remember  exactly  when  I  last  saw  him 
before  that. 

Q.  Whei'o  did  you  see  him  in  Washington  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  in  the  President's  house ;  in  the  Eaat  Room  of  the  President's 
house. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  or  evening  ? 

A.  It  was,  perhaps,  a  quarter  past  ten  o'clock  in  the  evening. 

Q.  The  evening  of  what  day  in  the  week ;  do  you  remember  1 

A.  I  think  it  was  on  a  Monday  evening. 

Q.  Was  the  President  holding  a  levee-that  evening? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Please  state  how  the  conversation  began ;  what  was  said  ? 

Mr.  Ev.\RTS.  With  General  Thomas  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  With  General  Thomas. 

A.  Well,  it  commenced  by  my  approaching  him  and  mentioning  that  I  was  a 
Delawarean,  and  I  supposed  he  would  recognize  me,  which  I  think  he  did,  but 
could  not  remember  my  name.  I  then  gave  him  my  name,  and  told  him  I  kiww 
him  a  great  many  years  ago,  and  knew  his  father  and  brother  and  all  the  family. 
I  gave  him  my  hand,  and  he  talked.  He  said  he  was  a  Delaware  boy,  whicli  I 
very  well  knew ;  and  he  asked  mo  what  we  were  doing  in  Delaware.  I  do  not 
remember  the  answer  I  gave  to  him,  but  said  I  to  him,  "  General,  the  eyed  of 
Delaware  are  on  you."     [Laughter.] 

The  Chief  Justice.  Order! 

The  WiTNRSS.  I  gave  my  advice  to  him.  I  told  him  I  thought  Delaware 
would  require  him  to  stand  firm.  "  Stand  firm,  general,"  said  I.  He  said  he 
would;  he  was  standing  firm,  and  he  would  not  disappoint  his  friends;  and  in 
two  days,  or  two  or  three  days,  or  a  short  time,  he  would  kick  that  fellow  out. 
[Laughter.] 

Q.  Was  anything  further  said  ? 


224  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  Ye?;  there  was  sometliing  furtlier  paid.  1  will  try  to  recollect  it.  [A 
pause.]  I  repeated  ag-aiu  to  Iiini  what  the  desu-e,  I  presumed,  of  Delaware 
would  be,  aiul  he  said  I  need  not  give  myself  any  concern  about  that,  he  was 
going  to  remain  firm,  and  kick  that  fellow  out  Avithout  fail. 

Q.  When  he  said  he  would  "kick  that  fellow  out,"' did  he  in  any  way  indi- 
cate to   you  to  whom  he  referred  ? 

A.  He  did  not  mention  any  name. 

Q.  The  question  was  whether  he  indicated  to  whom  he  referred? 

A.  Well,  I  think  he  referred  to  the  Secretary  of  War.  I  did  not  have  any 
doubt  on  my  mind. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  That  was  not  the  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  answers  all  I  desire.  The  witness  is  yours,  gen- 
tlemen. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Staxberv  : 

Q.  You  said  you  had  known  General  Thomas  many  years  before? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Please  to  state  as  near  as  you  can  recollect  when  you  had  seen  General 
Thomas  before  this  interview  in  the  East  Room.  How  many  years  was  it  since 
you  had  seen  him  before  ? 

A.  I  was  in  this  city  during  the  war,  and  perhaps  I  might  have  seen  him 
then,  but  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  W^hat  is  the  time  that  you  are  certain  that  you  last  saw  him? 

A.  It  was  a  good  many  years;  I  cannot  remember  how  long  it  was.  I  can- 
not remember  the  time. 

Q.  Where?     In  Delaware,  or  here? 

A.  I  think  I  saw  him  in  New  Castle  at  one  time. 

Q.  Before,  or  after  he  went  to  West  Point? 

A.  Long  since  he  left  West  Point;  long  since  he  was  in  the  army. 

Q.  On  what  occasion  was  it  at  New  Castle  that  you  think  you  recollect 
seeing  him? 

A.  I  saw  him  in  the  street.     I  do  not  recollect  that  I  had  any  conversation' 
with  him  at  New  Castle.     His  father  lived  there,  and  his  brother. 

Q.  In  which  of  the  streets  of  New  Castle  did  you  see  him? 

A.  Well,  there  are  not  many  streets  in  New  Castle.  [Laughter.]  I  saw 
him  in  the  main  street,  1  think. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  street  ?  ' 

A.  It  was  not  in  the  middle  of  it;  it  was  on  the  pavement,  and  I  was  stand- 
ing by  the  court-house,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Q.  You  were  .standing  by  the  covirt-h6use  and  he  was  on  the  pavement? 

A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Was  he  walking  past  or  standing  there  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect. 

Q.  But  you  do  recollect  that  one  day  being  before  the  court-house  you  saw 
Thomas  standing  on  the  pavement?  ^ 

A.   I  was  standing  by  the  court-house. 

Q.  How  near  ? 

A.  Within  half  the  space  of  this  room. 

Q.  How  far  was  he  from  you? 

A.  I  think  he  was  on  the  ojjposite  side  of  the  street. 

Q.  On  the  other  pavement  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  I  think  so.  As  regards  the  time  and  whether  I  spoke  to  him  or  not 
I  cannot  tell.     I  saw  hiiu  there. 

Q.  That  is  what  you  recollect ;  seeing  him  there  that  day  ?  Was  he  stand- 
ing or  walking? 

A.  I  presume  he  was  walking.     I  do  not  recollect. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  225 

Q.  But  you  recollect  seeing  liim  there? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Can  you  not  tell  its  whether  he  Avas  standing  or  walking  ? 

A.  Sometimes  it  is  a  little  difficult  for  a  person's  memory  to  ruu  that  well. 
That  has  been  several  years  ago,  many  years  before  the  war. 

Q.  When  did  you  ever  see  him  to  speak  with  him  ? 

A.  I  used  to  speak  to  him  a  great  many  years  ago  when  he  would  be  at  New 
Castle  visiting  his  people.     He  married  his  wife  in  New  Castle. 

Q.  How  many  years  and  when  ?     That  is  the  question. 

A.  It  is  very  difficult  for  me  to  answer  how  many  years  or  when ;  but  I  saw 
him  there  and  I  saw  him  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

Q.  You  now  recollect  that  you  saw  him  in  the  city  of  Washington ;  a  little 
while  ago  j  ou  could  not  recollect  that  ? 

A.  I  think  now  I  do  recollect  seeing  him,  but  not  to  speak  to  him.  He  waa 
an  officer,  I  was  a  citizen. 

Q.  Whereabouts  in  Washington  did  you  see  him  before  this  time? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  that;  but  I  have  seen  him  in  Washington.  I  know  him 
when  I  see  him. 

Q.  When,  then,  did  you  ever  speak  to  him  before  this  time?     Name  a  time. 

A.  Every  time  I  would  come  within  speaking  distance  of  him  I  have  spoken 
to  him ;  but  to  name  a  time  I  cannot. 

Q.  You  cannot  answer  when  it  was  or  where  you  ever  spoke  to  him  before  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  particularly^ 

Q,  On  this  occasion  did  you  come  from  Delaware  to  see  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  had  other  business  in  Washington. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  to  see  him  or  intend  to  see  him? 

A.  Well,  I  wished  to  see  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  I  wished 
to  see  the  cabinet  I  saw  them  all  except  General  Thomas  in  the  Reception 
Room.  I  then  walked  into  the  East  Room,  and  I  saw  him  there;  I  went  to  him 
in  the  East  Room  and  spoke  to  him. 

Q.  You  wanted  to  see  hira  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  cabinet. 

A.  Well,  he  was  acting,  the  papers  stated,  as  a  member  of  the  cabinet. 

Q.  Whereabouts  in  the  East  Room  did  you  encounter  him? 

A.  On  the  west  side,  I  think,  of  the  East  Room. 

Q.  AVas  it  near  the  door  of  exit? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Near  the  centre  of  the  room? 

A.  I  think  it  was.  It  was  not  the  centre  of  the  room  exactly,  but  somewhere 
in  the  centre  of  the  distance  between  that  and  the  place  of  going  out. 

Q.  At  that  time  was  General  Thomas  apparently  going  out? 

A.  No,  sir.  When  I  first  saw  him  there  he  was  very  much  engaged,  speaking 
with  a  gentleman  very  earnestly,  and  I  waited  until  he  had  leisure  and  then  I 
approached  him. 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  gentleman  he  was  speaking  with  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  had  something  to  say  to  him.  What  did  you  intend  to  say  to 
him  when  you  found  out  that  he  was  tliere  ?  You  say  you  went  over  to  see 
hira;  what  did  you  intend  to  say  to  him? 

A.  Well,  his  being  a  Delawarean,  and  I  from  the  same  State,  I  wanted  to 
pass  the  compliments  with  him.  I  was  glad  to  see  him.  I  had  no  particular 
desire  to  see  him  on  any  business ;  but  I  just  said  to  him  what  I  have  already 
stated. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  there  especially  to  say  to  him  that  thing,  then,  but  only 
to  see  him? 

A.  I  was  drawn  there  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  Mr.  Johnson,  President  of  the 
United  States.     I  had  never  seen  him. 
15  I  P 


226  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  After  you  had  seen  Mr.  Johnson,  and  the  other  raeniber3  of  the  cabinet, 
I  understand  you  to  say  you  then  wanted  to  see  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  I  asked  a  friend  with  me  where  Gener^il  Thomas  was;  said  I,  "I  do  not 
B€e  him." 

Q.  Who  was  that  friend  that  was  Avith  you  ? 

A.  It  was  John  B.  Tanner. 

Q.  Where  was  he  from? 

A.  Washington. 

Q.  Does  he  live  here? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  Tanner  to  that  levee? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  after  you  had  seen  the  President  and  cabinet,  you  then  asked  him 
where  you  would  find  Thomas  ? 

A.  No  ;  that  was  not  the  manner. 

Q.  What  was  it  ? 

A.  Said  I,  "  I  see  them  all  but  General  Thomas."  I  did  not  know  the  mem- 
bers of  the  cabinet  personally,  but  they  were  pointed  out  to  me,  Mr.  Browning 
and  all  the  cabinet  except  Mr.  Thomas.  I  think  they  were  all  present  in  the 
Reception  Room. 

Q.  And  all  were  pointed  out  to  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  they  were  pointed  out  to  me. 

Q.  Having  seen  the  President,  and  having  seen  all  the  members  of  the  cabi- 
net, then  you  asked  where  you  could  find  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  then? 

A.  I  did  not  ask  where  I  could  find  him.  Said  I,  "  I  miss  General  Thomas 
here;  he  is  not  in  this  room."  My  friend  said  no,  he  was  not  in  that  room; 
and  when  we  left  the  Reception  Room  and  came  into  the  East  Room  I  saw  him 
there. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  your  friend  Tanner  from  the  Reception  Room  to  the  East 
Room  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  point  out  Thomas  to  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  pointed  him  out  myself. 

Q.  What  was  the  first  thing  you  said  to  Thomas  after  he  was  through  with 
hie  conversation  with  the  gentlemen  he  was  speaking  to  ;  how  did  you  first 
address  him  ? 

A.  I  have  already  stated  that. 

Q.   State  it  again. 

A.  I  addressed  him  as  a  Delawarean,  knowing  him  to  be  so.  I  told  him  I 
was  from  Delaware.  He  said  he  was  a  Delan'arc  boy  himself  I  knew  that 
very  well,  and  knew  his  family. 

Q.  Did  you  shake  hands  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  followed  when  you  told  him  you  were  from  Delaware  ? 

A.  As  1  before  stated,  he  asked  me  how  things  Averc  coming  on  in  Delaware, 
how  we  were  all  getting  along  or  how  we  were  coming  on ;  that  was  about  the 
amount  he  asked  me. 

Q.  What  was  your  answer  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  answer  I  gave. 

Q.  What  was  said  next,  if  you  do  not  recollect  that  answer  ? 

A.  The  next  was,  as  I  before  stated,  that  1  told  him  the  eyes  of  Delaware 
were  on  him,  and  to  stand  firm ;  that  was  the  language  I  addressed  to  him. 

Q.  Was  that  all  you  said  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  227 

A.  Well,  no ;  I  repeated,  perhaps,  some  part  of  that  or  pretty  much  all.  I 
repeated  a  portion  of  it,  at  any  rate. 

Q.  When  you  asked  him  to  stand  firm,  what  was  his  reply  ? 

A.  He  said  he  was  standing  firm. 

Q.  What  did  yovi  next  say  1 

A.  I  told  him  the  people  of  Delaware  would  expect  it  of  him.  He  said  they 
should  not  be  disappointed, 

Q.  What  next  I 

A.  That  he  would  stand  firm ;  and  he  then  remarked  that  he  would  kick 
that  fellow  out  in  two  or  three  days,  or  in  a  short  time,  or  in  a  few  days  ;  I 
cannot  remember  what  his  exact  expression  was. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Karsner,  if  this  idea  of  kicking  out  did  not  first  come 
from  you  :  whether  you  did  not  suggest  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  sure  of  that  I 

A.  I  have  taken  an  oath  here. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  are  sure  of  that  ? 

A.  I  am  sure  of  that. 

Q.  When  he  said  he  would  kick  him  out  did  you  reply  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  I  did  reply  just  to  that,  for  it  was  a  pretty  severe 
expression. 

Q.  What  did  you  reply,  severe  or  not ;  what  did  you  say  to  him  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  told  him  it  would  be  all  right  even  ;  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him  1 

A.  I  said  "  I  think  Delaware  will  expect  something  from  you."  [Great 
laughter.] 

Q.  Was  that  what  you  meant  by  the  severe  remark  you  made  to  him  1 

The  Witness.  What  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Was  that  the  severe  remark,  '*  that  Delaware  expected  he 
would  do  something  ?" 

The  Witness.  Delav/are,  I  told  him,  would  expect  him  to  stand  firm,  and  his 
conduct  would  be  viewed  by  Delaware,  or  something  to  that  effect. 

Q.  Was  that  the  severe  remark  which  you  have  said  you  made  ? 

A.  I  did  not  make  any  severe  remark. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  1  think  you  misunderstood  the  witness,  Mr.  Stan- 
bery.     He  said  simply  that  it  was  a  severe  remark  that  General  Thomas  made. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  what  I  intended  to  convey. 

Mr.  Stanbery,  (to  the  witness.)  Did  the  conversation  stop  there? 

A.  It  was  not  a  very  long  one.  There  might  have  been  some  few  words 
said  after  that.     Just  before  I  left  I  renewed  the  desires  of  Delaware.  [Laughter.] 

The  Chief  Justice.  Order!  order! 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  How  did  you  renew  the  desires  of  Delaware  ?  Did  you  feel  yourself 
authorized  to  speak  for  Delaware  ? 

A.  Oh,  well,  you  know,  when  we  get  away  from  home  we  think  a  good  deal 
of  home,  and  are  inclined  to  speak  in  behalf  of  our  own  State. 

Q.  At  that  time  wei-e  you  in  sympathy  with  the  wishes  of  Delaware  that  he 
should  do  something  in  regard  to  the  War  Oflice  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  1  object. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  What  is  the  ground  of  the  objection  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  think  this  is  the  proper  mode  of  proving  the 
sympathies  of  Delaware  on  this  occasion  ;  and,  if  it  is,  the  sympathies  of  Delaware 
are  a  matter  wholly  immaterial  to  this  issue. 


228  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Stanijerv.  We  agree  to  that.  The  question  was  as  to  the  sympathies 
of  the  witness.  J  will  put  the  question  in  this  form.  (To  the  witness.)  Was 
the  line  of  conduct  he  spoke  of  taking  that  which  suited  you  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  would  or  no, 

Q.  Did  you  in  that  conversation  give  him  any  advice  beyond  standing  firm 
what  he  should  do  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  any  advice  further  than  I  have  stated. 

Q.  After  you  parted  there  to  whom  did  you  first  communicate  this  convei-sa- 
tion  that  you  had  had  there  with  General  Thomas  1 

A.  Well,  I  communicated  it — if  the  question  is  right  for  me  to  answer 

]\Lr.  Stanbery.  Yes,  sir;  you  will  answer  it. 

A.  I  communicated  it  to  Mr.  Tanner. 

Q.  Your  friend  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  night. 

Q.  Whereabouts  did  you  communicate  that  to  Mr.  Tanner  1 

A.  Going  along  the  street. 

Q.  Going  away  from  tliere  that  night  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  if  my  memory  serves  me  aright,  I  think  I  did  that  night. 

Q.  To  whom  next  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  the  next  one  exactly. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  have  no  recollection  now  of  telling  anybody  else 
but  Tanner  ? 

A.  Yes ;  I  told  several  that  same  thing.  I  did  not  charge  my  memory  with 
the  persons  I  told  it  to. 

Q.  You  told  several  that  night,  the  next  day,  or  when  ? 

A.  The  next  day 

Q.  In  Washington  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell,  and  whom  to  1 

A.  I  say  I  cannot  recollect  precisely  the  persona  I  told  it  to.  I  told  it  to 
several. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  one  besides  Tanner  1 

A.  Yes,  I  recollect  a  gentleman  from  Delaware. 

Q.  What  was  his  namel 

A.  His  name  was  Smith.     [Laughter.] 

Q.  What  was  the  first  name  of  that  Mr.  Smith  ? 

A.  It  was  not  John.     [Great  laughter.] 

Q.  What  was  it,  if  you  say  you  recollect  it  was  not  John  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  William. 

Q.  Whereabouts  did  you  see  William  Smith  1 

A.  In  Washington. 

Q.  Whereabouts  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  on  the  street. 

Q.  Near  the  court-house  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Wherofibouts,  then  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  where  your  court-house  is  here. 

Q.  Whereabouts  in  Washington  did  you  see  Smith  1 

A.  I  think  it  was  on  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

Q.  That  is  a  pretty  long  avenue.     Whereabouts  ou  the  avenue  ? 

A.  Not  far  from  the  National  Hotel. 

Q.  On  the  street  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  William  Smith  ? 

A.  I  told  AVilliam  Smith  just  what  I  have  told  you.  [Laughter.]  Yes,  sir,  I 
told  him  just  what  I  have  sworn  to  here. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  229 

Q.  What  part  of  Delaware  was  William  Smith  from  ? 
A.  He  is  from  the  banks  of  the  Brandy  wine.    [Great  laughter.] 
Q.  Which  bank  of  the  Brandywine  does  he  live  on  ? 
A.  I  think  he  is  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Brandywine,  or  northeast. 
Q.  Does  he  live  in  town  or  country  ? 
A.  He  lives  in  the  country.     He  is  a  farmer. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  this  examination  is 
irrelevant  and  should  not  be  protracted. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Mr.  Karsner,  when  were  you  summoned  before  any  committee  in  this 
matter  1 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  day.     It  was  about  the   13th,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  you  remain  in  Washington  from  the  9th  till  the  13th  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  was  engaged  in  trying  to  get  a  mail  route  in  Delaware  to 
facilitate  post  office  matters,  and  I  was  detained  here.  I  had  engaged  our 
representative,  Mr.  Nicholson,  and  his  father  was  very  ill  at  the  time,  and  he 
was  some  time  out  of  the  House,  which  protracted  my  stay. 

Q.  Have  you  remained  here  ever  since  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  at  whose  instance  you  were  summoned  ? 

A.  No  ;   I  cannot  tell  that  exactly,  at  whose  instance,  what  particular  person 
had  me  summoned.     I  was  summoned  before   the   managers  of  the   House  of 
Representatives,  and  ordered  at  a  certain  time  to  be  at  the  judiciary  apartment 
up  stairs  over  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Re-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  if  you  were  summoned  before  the  managers.  Did 
you  testify  there  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  After  you  had  testified  there,  was  General  Thomas  called  in  t 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  your  testimony,  as  you  have  given  it  here,  I'ead  over  before  him  ? 

Mr.  Groesbeck.  We  object  to  that. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Now,  I  propose  to  ask  whether  General  Thomas  was 
asked  if  that  was  true,  and  if  he  admitted  upon  his  oath  that  it  was  true,  all 
you  have  stated. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  object  to  that,  Mr.  Chief  Justice. 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  I  think  it  is  competent. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  do  not  think  they  can  support  their  witness  by  showing 
what  a  third  person.  General  Thomas,  said. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  managers.)  Do  you  press  the  question  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  press  the  question,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  for  this 
reason :  upon  an  innocent  and  unoffending  man  there  has  been  a  very  severe 
cross-examination  within  the  duties  of  the  counsel — undoubtedly  he  did  not 
mean  to  do  more  than  his  duty — attempting  to  discredit  him  here  by  that  cross- 
examination  as  to  a  conversation.  If  that  cross-examination  meant  anything, 
that  is  what  it  meant.  Now,  I  propose  to  show  that  the  co-conspirator  here, 
Thomas,  admitted  the  correctness  of  this  man's  statements.  This  man  was 
heard  as  a  witness  by  the  House  of  Representatives ;  the  managers  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  having  taken  his  testimony,  not  willing  to  do  any 
injustice  to  General  Thomas,  brought  General  Thomas  in  and  sat  him  down, 
and  on  his  oath  put  the  question  to  him,  is  what  this  man  says  true  1  being  the 
same  then  as  he  swears  here  ;  and  General  Thomas  admitted  it  word  for  word. 
I  think  it  is  competent  and  do  press  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Our  view  of  it  is,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  that,  having  called  this 


230  IMPEACHMENT   OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

witness  and  put  him  on  the  stand,  they  cannot  show  that  he  has,  on  a  different 
occasion,  told  the  same  story.  That  is  a  plain  matter,  and  I  do  not  understand 
that  that  is  the  ground  which  they  take. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  do  not  propose  that. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Then  they  offer  the  declarations  of  General  Thomas,  not  in 
reference  to  any  conspiracy,  not  in  reference  to  any  agreement  between  himself 
and  the  President  as  to  doing  anything,  not  in  reference  to  any  act  done  pur- 
suant to  that  conspiracy,  but  simply  the  declarations  of  General  Thomas  as  to 
something  which  General  Thomas  had  said  to  this  witness  to  support  the  credit 
of  the  witness.     We  object  to  that  as  incompetent. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  having  made  the  offer,  and  it  being 
objected  to,  and  it  being  clearly  competent,  if  General  Thomas  is  ever  brought 
here  to  contradict  it  I  will  waive  it, 

Mr.  Curtis.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  we  are  through  with  the  witness;  but  we 
must  request  him  to  remain  iu  attendance  until  discharged. 

Mr.  Doolittle.  Now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  move  that  the  court  adjourn 
until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  moved  by  the  senator  from  Wisconsin  that  the 
Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  adjourn  uutil  to-morrow,  12  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Senate,  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeach- 
ment, adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 


Thursday,  April  2,  1868. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at  five 
minutes  past  12  o'clock  and  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  also  appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  Ilouse  of  Representatives  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  headed  by  Mr.  E.  B. 
Washburne,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker 
and  Clerk,  entered  the  Senate  chamber  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  pro- 
vided for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  minutes  of  the  last  day's 
proceedings. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  yesterday 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  send  to  the  Chair  and  offer  for  adoption  an  amendment  to  the 
rules. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Tlie  Secretary  will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Amend  rule  sovon  by  adding  the  following: 

Upon  all  such  qne.-^tion.s  tin;  vote  .shall  bu  witliout  a  division,  unless  the  jeivs  and  uays  bo 
demanded  by  one  iit'th  ol' the  menibers  present  or  requested  by  the  presidinfj  olficer,  when 
the  .same  shall  be  taken. 

Mr.  Drake.  Please  read  the  rule  as  it  would  be  if  amended. 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

VII.  The  presiding  ofKccr  of  the  Senate  shall  direct  all  necessary  preparations  iu  the 
Senate  chamber,  and  the  presiding  officer  on  the  trial  shall  direct  all  the  forms  of  proceed- 
ing while  the  Senate  are  sitting  (or  the  ))nrposi<  of  tryiiifi^  an  impeachment,  and  all  forms 
during  the  trial  not  otherwise  si)ecially  ]irovided  for.  And  the  ])residing  otHcer  on  the  trial 
may  rule  all  questions  of  evidence  and  iucideutal  questions,  which  ruling  shall  stand  as  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  231 

judgment  of  the  Senate,  unless  some  member  of  the  Senate  shall  ask  that  a  formal  vote  be 
taken  thereon,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  decision ;  or  he  mav,  at 
his  option,  in  the  tirst  instance,  submit  any  such  question  to  a  vote  of  the  members  of  the 
Senate.  Upon  all  such  questions  the  vote  shall  be  without  a  division,  unless  the  yeas  and 
nays  be  demanded  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  present  or  requested  by  the  presiding  officer, 
when  the  same  shall  be  taken. 

Mr.  Hendricks.  I  suppose  that,  being  a  change  of  a  rule,  stands  over  for 
one  day. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  any  senator  objects. 

Mr.  Hendricks.  Yes,  sir;  I  do  object. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  will  lie  over  for  one  day.  The  managers  on  the  part 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  will  proceed  with  their  evidence.  Senatois 
will  please  to  give  their  attention. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  propose  now  to  call  General  Emory. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Before  the  managers  proceed  with  another  witness  we  wish 
to  recall  for  a  moment  Mr.  Karsner,  the  last  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  I  submit  that  if  Mr.  Karsner  is  to  be 
recalled,  the  examination  and  cross-examination  having  been  finished  on  both 
sides,  he  must  be  recalled  as  the  witness  for  the  respondent,  and  the  proper  time 
to  recall  him  will  be  when  they  put  in  their  case. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  wish  to  recall  him  but  a  moment  to  ask  a  question  which, 
perhaps,  would  have  been  put  if  it  had  not  been  stopped  yesterday. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Is  there  any  objection  to  recalling  the  witness  for  the 
purpose  of  putting  a  single  question  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Not  if  it  shall  not  be  drawn  into  a  precedent. 

George  W.  Karsner  recalled. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery: 

Q.  Mr.  Karsner,  where  did  you  stay  that  night  of  the  9th  of  March,  after  you 
had  the  conversation  with  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  I  staid  at  the  house  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Tanner,  in  Georgetown. 

Q.  What  is  the  employment  of  Mr.  Tanner  ? 

A.  I  believe  he  is  engaged  in  one  of  the  departments  here  in  Washington. 

Q.  In  which  one  ? 

A.  I  think  the  War  Department. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  on  the  next  morning  you  accompanied  Mr.  Tan- 
ner to  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  that  1 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  accompanied  him  or  not.  Sometimes  I  did 
and  sometimes  I  did  not.  I  had  other  business,  and  sometimes  I  was  engaged 
in  that  and  did  not  accompany  him,  and  at  other  times  I  did  accompany  him. 

Q.  At  any  time  did  you  go  with  him  to  the  War  Department  and  see  Mr. 
Stanton  in  regard  to  your  testimony  1 

The  Witness.  I  appeal  to  the  court. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Answer  the  question. 

A.  I  saw  Mr.  Stanton. 

Several  Senators.  Louder ;  we  cannot  hear. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Raise  your  voice  so  that  you  can  be  heard  in  the  cham- 
ber. 

By  Mr.  Stan  bee  Y  : 

Q.  You  say  you  saw  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  saw  Mr.  Stanton. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  him  about  1 

A.  Nothing  particular  about ;  only  I  was  introduced  to  him. 

Q.  Whom  by  ? 


232  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

A.  By  Mr.  Tanner. 

Q.  What  was  your  object  in  seeing  him? 

A.  Well,  I  had  seen  all  the  great  men  in  Washington,  and  I  wished  to  see 
him. 

Q.  That  ia  your  answer  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  conversation  with  Mr,  Stanton  was  any  reference  made  to  your 
conversation  with  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  I  think  there  was. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  a  note  from  Mr.  Stanton  at  that  time,  a  memorandum  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  any  directions  where  to  go  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  speak  about  your  being  examined  as  a  witness  before  the  committee, 
or  that  you  should  be  ? 

A,  There  was  something  said  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  That  is  all,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.     That  is  all,  Mr.  Karsuer. 

Hon.  ThojMAS  W.  Ferry  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  War  Office  on  the  morning  of  the  22d  of  Febru- 
ary when  General  Thomas  came  there  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  At  the  time  when  some  demand  was  made  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  you  paid  attention  to  what  was  going  on  there, 
and  whether  you  made  any  memorandum  of  it  1 

A.  I  did  pay  attention,  and  I  believe  1  made  a  memorandum  of  the  occur- 
rences as  far  as  I  observed  them. 

Q.  Have  you  that  memorandum  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  [producing  a  paper.] 

Q.  Will  you  please  state,  assisting  your  memory  by  that  memorandum,  what 
took  place  there,  in  the  order  as  well  as  you  can,  and  as  distinctly  as  you  can  ? 

A.  I  believe,  if  my  recollection  serves  me,  that  the  memorandum  covers  it 
perhaps  as  distinctly  as  I  could  possibly  state  it.  I  wrote  it  immediately  after 
the  occurrence  of  the  appearance  of  General  Thomas,  and  perhaps  it  will  state 
aubstantially  and  more  perfectly  than  I  could  state  from  memory  now  what 
occurred. 

Q.  Unless  objected  to,  you  may  read  it. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  shall  make  no  objection. 

The  witness  read  as  follows  : 

War  Department,  Washington  City, 

February  22,  1868. 

In  the  presence  of  Secretary  Stanton,  Judge  Kelley,  Moorheatl,  Dodge,  Van  Wyck,  Van 
Horn,  Delano,  and  Freeman  Clarke,  at  twenty-five  minutes  past  twelve  ni.,  General  Thomas, 
Adjutant  General,  came  into  this  Secretary  ol  War  olhce,  saying,  "(Uiod  morning,"  the  Sec- 
retary replying,  "  Good  morning,  sir."  'J'homas  looked  arouutl  and  said,  "  I  do  not  wish 
to  disturb  these  gentlemen,  and  will  wait."  Stantou  said,  "Nothing  private  liere  ;  wiiat  do 
you  want,  sir  ?" 

Thomas  demanded  of  Secretary  Stanton  the  surrender  of  the  Secretary  of  War  oitice. 
Stanton  denied  it  to  him,  and  ordered  him  back  to  liis  own  otiice  as  Adjutant  General. 
Thomas  refused  to  go.  "I  claim  the  ofHco  of  Secretary  of  War,  and  demand  it  by  order  of 
the  President." 

Stanton.   "I  deny  your  authority  to  act,  and  order  you  back  to  your  own  office." 

Thomas.  "  I  will  stand  here.  I  want  no  unpleasantness  in  the  iireseuce  of  these  gentle- 
men." 

Stanton.  "You  can  stand  there  if  you  ])lease,  but  you  cannot  act  as  Secretary  of  War. 
I  am  Secretary  of  War.     I  order  you  out  of  this  otfice  and  to  your  own." 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  233 

Thomas.   "I  refuse  to  go,  aud  will  stand  here." 

Stanton.  "How  are  you  to  get  possession ;  do  you  mean  to  use  force?" 

Thomas,  "  I  do  not  care  to  use  force,  but  my  mind  is  made  up  as  to  what  I  shall  do.  I 
want  no  unpleasantness,  though.     I  shall  stay  here  and  act  as  Secretary  of  War." 

Stanton.   "  You  shall  not,  and  I  order  you,  as  your  superior,  back  to  your  own  office." 

Thomas.   "I  will  not  obey  you,  but  will  stand  here  and  remain  here." 

Stanton.  "  You  can  stand  there,  as  you  please.  I  order  you  out  of  this  office  to  your 
own.     I  am  Secretary  of  War,  and  your  superior." 

Thomas  then  went  into  opposite  room  across  hall  [General  Schriver's)  and  commenced 
ordering  General  Schriver  and  General  E.  D.  Townsend.  Stanton  entered,  followed  by 
Moorhead  and  Ferry,  and  ordered  those  generals  not  to  obey  or  pay  attention  to  General 
Thomas's  orders  ;  that  he  denied  his  assumed  authority  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and 
forbade  their  obedience  of  his  directions.  "I  am  Secretary  of  War,  and  I  now  order  you. 
General  Thomas,  out  of  this  office  to  your  own  quarters." 

Thomas.  "I  will  not  go.     I  shall  discharge  the  functions  of  Secretary  of  War." 

Stanton.  "  Y^ou  will  not." 

Thomas.  "I  shall  require  the  mails  of  the  War  Department  to  be  delivered  to  me,  and 
shall  transact  the  business  of  the  office." 

Stanton.   "Y^ou  shall  not  have  them,  and  I  order  you  to  your  own  office." 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  tlie  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  The  witness  is 
yours,  gentlemen. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Did  the  conversation  stop  there  ? 

A.  So  far  as  I  heard. 

Q.  You  then  left  the  office  ? 

A.  I  left  in  about  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  after  that.  I  left  General  Thomas 
in  General  Schriver's  room,  and  returned  into  the  Secretary  of  War's  room. 

Q.  Did  the  Secretary  return  with  you,  or  did  he  remain  1 

A,  He  remained  a  few  moments  in  General  Schriver's  room,  and  then  re- 
turned to  his  own  room.     When  I  left,  he  was  in  his  own  room. 

Q.  How  early  in  the  morning  of  the  22d  did  you  get  to  the  office  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  ? 

A.  My  impression  is  it  was  abouit  a  quarter  past  eleven  in  the  morning.  It 
was  a  little  after  eleven,  at  any  rate. 

Q.  Had  you  been  there  at  all  the  night  before? 

A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  orders  given  by  General  Thomas  in  Schriver's  room  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  in  Schriver's  room  at  the  time  those  orders  were  given  ? 

A.  I  was  at  the  threshold  ;  I  had  reached  the  threshold.  I  believe  I  was  the 
first  that  followed  Secretary  Stanton.  I  believe  I  was  the  first  and  Mr.  Moor- 
head second. 

William  H.  Emory  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  State  your  full  name. 

A.  William  Helmsley  Emory. 

Q.  What  is  your  rank  and  command  in  the  army  ? 

A.  1  am  colonel  of  the  fifth  cavalry,  and  brevet  major  general  in  the  army. 
My  command  is  the  department  of  Washington. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  command  of  that  department  1 

A.  Since  the  1st  of  September,  1867. 

Q.  Soon  after  you  went  into  command  of  the  department  did  you  have  any 
conversation  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  as  to  the  troops  in  the 
department  or  their  station  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Before  proceeding  to  give  that  conversation,  will  you  state  to  the  Senate 
the  extent  of  the  department  of  Washington,  to  what  it  extends,  its  territorial 
limits,  I  mean  ? 


234  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  Tlio  departniont  of  "Washington  consists  of  the  District  of  Columbia, 
Maryland,  and  Delaware,  excluding  Fort  DehvAvare. 

Q.  State  as  well  as  you  can ;  if  you  cannot  give  it  all,  give  the  substance 
of  that  conversation  which  you  had  with  the  President  when  ybu  first  entered 
upon  command. 

A.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  give  anything  like  that  conversation.  I  can 
only  give  the  substance  of  it.  It  occurred  long  ago.  He  asked  me  about  the 
location  of  ohe  troops,  and  I  told  him  the  strength  of  each  post,  and,  as  near  as 
I  can  recollect,  the  commanding  officer  of  the  post. 

Q.  Go  on,  sir,  if  that  is  not  all. 

A.  That  was  the  substance  and  important  part  of  the  conversation.  There 
was  some  conversation  as  to  whether  more  troops  shoukl  be  sent  here  or  not. 
I  recommended  that  there  should  be  troops  here,  and  called  the  President's 
attention  to  a  report  of  General  Canby,  my  predecessor,  recommending  that 
there  should  always  be  at  the  seat  of  government  at  least  a  brigade  of  infantry, 
a  battery  of  artillery,  and  a  squadron  of  cavalry  ;  and  some  conversation,  mostly 
of  my  own,  was  had  in  reference  to  the  formation  of  a  military  force  in  Mary- 
land that  was  then  going  on. 

Q.  What  military  force  ? 

A.  A  force  organized  by  the  State  of  Maryland. 

Q.  Please  state,  as  well  as  you  can,  what  you  stated  to  the  President,  in  sub- 
stance, relative  to  the  formation  of  that  military  force. 

A.  I  merely  stated  that  I  did  not  see  the  object  of  it,  as  near  as  I  can  recol- 
lect, and  that  I  did  not  like  the  organization ;   I  saw  no  necessity  for  it. 

Q.  Did  you  state  what  yoiu-  objections  were  to  the  organization  ? 

A.  I  think  it  is  likely  I  did  ;  but  I  cannot  recollect  exactly  at  this  time  what 
they  were.  I  think  it  likely  that  I  stated  that  they  were  clothed  in  uniform 
that  was  offensive  to  our  people,  some  portions  of  them ;  and  that  they  were 
officered  by  gentlemen  who  had  been  in  the  southern  army. 

Q.  By  the  offensive  uniform  do  you  mean  the  gray  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anything  else  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Nothing. 

Q.  Did  you  call  upon  the  President  upon  your  own  thought  or  were  you  sent 
for  at  that  time  ? 

A.  1  was  sent  for. 

Q.  When  again  did  he  send  for  you  for  any  such  purpose  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  the  22d  of  February. 

Q.  In  what  manner  did  you  receive  the  message  1 

A.  I  received  a  note  from  Colonel  Moore. 

Q.  Who  is  Colonel  Moore  1 

A.  He  is  the  secretary  of  the  President  and  an  officer  of  the  army. 

Q.  Have  you  that  note  ? 

A.  I  have  not.      It  may  be  in  my  desk  at  the  office. 

Q.  Did  you  produce  that  uote  before  the  committee  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives 1 

A.  I  read  from  it. 

Q.  Have  you  since  seen  that  note  as  copied  in  their  proceedings  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Is  that  a  correct  copy  1 

A.  That  is  a  correct  copy. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlicr,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  Shall  I  use  it, 
gentlemen  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  Certainly. 

Mr.  EvAKT.s.  Use  it,  subject  to  the  production  of  the  original. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  235 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  desired.     I  suppose  it  will  not  be  insisted  on,  [hand- 
ing a  printed  paper  to  the  witness.]      Will  you  read  it? 
The  witness  read  as  follows  : 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  D.  C, 

Fibruarij  22,  1868. 

General  :  The  President  directs  nie  to  say  that  he  will  be  pleased  to  have  you  call  on  him 
as  early  as  practicable. 

Very  respectfully  and  truly,  yours, 

WILLIAM  G.  MOORE, 

United  States  Army. 

Q.  How  early  did  you  call  ? 

A.  I  called  immediately. 

Q.  How  early  iu  the  day  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  midday. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  find  with  the  President,  if  anybody  1 

A.  I  found  the  President  alone  when  I  first  went  in. 

Q.  Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  state  as  nearly  as  you  can  what  took  place 
there  1 

A.  I  will  try  and  state  the  substance  of  it,  but  the  words  I  cannot  undertake 
to  state  exactly.  The  President  asked  me  if  I  recollected  a  conversation  he  had. 
had  with  me  when  I  first  took  command  of  the  department.  I  told  him  that  I 
recollected  the  fact  of  the  conversation  distinctly.  He  then  asked  me  what 
changes  had  been  made.  I  told  him  no  material  changes ;  but  such  as  had  been 
made  I  could  state  at  once.  I  went  on  to  state  that  in  the  fall  six  companies  of 
the  twenty-ninth  infantry  had  been  brought  to  this  city  to  winter;  but,  as  an 
offset  to  that,  four  companies  of  the  twelfth  infantry  had  been  detached  to 
South  Carolina,  on  the  request  of  the  commander  of  that  district;  that  two 
companies  of  artillery,  that  had  been  detached  by  my  predecessor,  one  of  them 
for  the  purpose  of  aiding  in  putting  down  the  Fenian  difficulties,  had  beeu 
returned  to  the  command ;  that  although  the  number  of  companies  had  beeu 
increased,  the  numerical  strength  of  the  command  was  very  much  the  same, 
growing  out  of  an  order  reducing  the  artillery  and  infantry  companies  from  the 
maximum  of  the  war  establishment  to  the  minimum  of  the  peace  establishment. 
The  President  said,  "I  do  not  refer  to  those  changes."  I  replied  that  if  he 
would  state  what  changes  he  referred  to,  or  who  made  the  report  of  the  changes, 
perhaps  I  could  be  more  explicit.  He  said,  "  I  refer  to  recent  changes,  within 
a  day  or  two,"  or  something  to  that  effect.  I  told  him  I  thought  I  could 
assure  him  that  no  changes  had  been  made ;  that,  under  a  recent  order  issued 
for  the  government  of  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  founded  upon  a  law  of 
Congress,  all  orders  had  to  be  transmitted  through  General  Grant  to  the  army, 
and,  in  like  manner,  all  orders  coming  from  Genei-al  Grant  to  any  of  his  subor- 
dinate officers  must  necessarily  come,  if  in  my  department,  through  me ;  that  if, 
by  chance,  an  order  had  been  given  to  any  junior  officer  of  mine,  it  was  his  duty 
at  once  to  report  the  fact.  The  President  asked  me,  "What  order  do  you  refer 
to?"  I  replied,  "To  Order  No.  17  of  the  series  of  1867."  He  said,  "I  would 
like  to  see  the  order,"  and  a  messenger  was  despatched  for  it.  At  this  time  a 
gentleman  came  in  who  I  supposed  had  business  in  no  way  connected  with  the 
business  that  I  had  in  hand,  and  I  withdrew  to  the  further  end  of  the  room, 
and  while  there  the  messenger  came  with  the  book  of  orders,  and  handed  it  to 
me.  As  soon  as  the  gentleman  had  withdrawn  I  returned  to  the  President,  with 
the  book  in  my  hand,  and  said  I  would  take  it  as  a  favor  if  he  would  permit 
me  to  call  his  attention  to  that  order;  that  it  had  been  passed  in  an  appropria- 
tion bill,  and  I  thought  it  not  unlikely  had  escaped  his  attention.  He  took  the 
order  and  read  it,  and  observed,  "  This  is  not  in  conformity  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  that  makes  me  Commander-in-chief,  or  with  the  terms  of 
your  commission." 

Mr.  Howard.  Repeat  his  language,  if  you  please. 


236  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Witness.  I  cannot  repeat  it  any  nearer  tlian  I  am  now  doing. 

Mr.  CoNKLi.VG.  Repeat  your  last  answer  louder,  so  that  we  may  hear. 

!^[r.  JoH.xsoN.  What  he  said. 

The  Witness.  What  who  said,  the  President  or  me  ? 

Mr.  Howard.  The  President. 

The  Witness.  He  said,  "  This  is  not  in  conformity  Avith  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  which  makes  me  Commander-in-chief,  or  with  the  terms  of 
your  commission."  I  replied,  "  That  is  the  order  which  you  have  approved  and 
issued  to  the  army  for  our  government,"  or  something  to  that  effect.  I  cannot 
recollect  the  exact  words,  nor  do  I  intend  to  quote  the  exact  words,  of  the  Presi- 
dent. He  said,  "Am  I  to  understand  that  the  President  of  the  United  Stales  can- 
not give  an  order  except  through  the  General  of  the  army,"  or  "  General  Grant  ?" 
I  said,  in  reply,  that  that  was  my  impression  ;  that  that  Avas  the  o})inion  that  the 
army  entertained,  and  I  thought  upon  that  subject  they  were  a  iniit.  I  also 
said,  "  I  think  it  is  fair,  Mr.  President,  to  say  to  you  that  when  this  order  came 
out  there  was  considerable  discussion  on  the  subject  as  to  what  were  the  obliga- 
tions of  an  officer  under  that  order,  and  some  eminent  lawyers  were  consulted — 
I  myself  consulted  one — and  the  ouiniou  was  given  to  me  decidedly  and  une- 
quivocally that  we  were  bound  by  the  order,  constitutional  or  not  constitutional." 
The  President  observed  that  the  object  of  the  law  was  evident. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Before  you  pass  from  that,  did  you  state  to  him  who 
the  lawyers  were  that  had  been  consulted  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  did  you  state  on  that  subject? 

A.  Perhaps,  in  reference  to  that,  a  part  of  my  statement  was  not  altogether 
correct.     In  regard  to  myself,  I  consulted  Mr.  Robert  J.  Walker. 

Q.  State  what  you  said  to  him,  whether  correct  or  otherwise  1 

A.  I  will  state  it.  I  stated  that  I  had  consulted  Mr.  Robert  J.  Walker,  in 
reply  to  his  question  as  to  whom  it  was  I  had  consulted ;  and  I  understand  other 
officers  had  consulted  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  him  Avhat  opinion  had  been  reported  from  those  consulta- 
tions ? 

A.  I  stated  before  that  the  lawyer  that  I  had  consulted  stated  to  me  that  we 
were  bound  by  it  undoubtedly;  and  I  understood  from  some  officers,  who  I 
supposed  had  consulted  Mr.  Johnson,  that  he  was  of  the  same  opinion. 

Q.  What  did  the  President  reply  to  that  ? 

A.  The  President  said,  "  The  object  of  the  hnv  is  evident."  There  the  con- 
versation ended  by  my  thanking  him  for  the  courtesy  with  which  he  had  allowed 
me  to  express  my  own  opinion. 

Q.  Did  you  then  withdraw? 

A.  I  then  withdrew. 

Q.  Did  you  see  General  Thomas  that  morning? 

A.  I  did  not,  that  I  recollect.     I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q  (Handing  a  paper  to  the  witness.)  State  whether  that  is  an  official  copy 
of  the  order  to  which  you  referred  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  It  is  only  a  part  of  the  order.  The  oi-der  which  1  had  in  my 
hand,  and  which  I  have  in  my  office,  has  the  appropriation  bill  in  front  of  it. 
That  is,  perhaps,  another  form  issued  from  the  Adjutant  General's  office;  but  it 
is  the  substance  of  one  part  of  the  order. 

Q.  Is  it  so  far  as  it  concerns  this  matter? 

A.  So  far  as  it  concerns  this  matter  it  is  the  same  order;  but  it  is  not  the  same 
copy,  or,  more  properly,  the  same  edition.  There  are  two  editions  of  the  order, 
one  published  with  the  appropriation  bill,  and  this  is  a  section  of  the  appropria- 
tion bill,  and  probably  has  been  published  as  a  detached  section. 

Q.  Is  that  an  official  copy  '! 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  an  official  copy. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


237 


Q.  This,  I  observe,  is  headed  "Order  No.  15."  I  observed  you  said  "No. 
17."     Do  you  refer  to  the  same  or  different  orders  ? 

A.  I  refer  to  the  same  order,  and  I  thiuk  Order  No.  17  is  the  one  containing 
the  appropriation  bill,  the  one  I  referred  to,  and  the  one  I  had  in  my  hand,  and, 
I  think,  the  one  that  is  on  tile  in  my  office.  That  made  the  confusion  in  the 
first  place.  I  may  have  said  Order  15  or  17,  but  Order  No.  17  embraces,  I 
think,  all  the  appropriation  bill,  and  is  the  full  order. 

Q.  This  is  No.  15,  and  covers  the  second  and  third  sections  of  that  act? 

A.  The  sections  are  the  same. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  I  propose  to  put 
this  paper  in  evidence,  if  you  do  not  object. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Allow  us  to  look  at  it. 

[The  paper  was  handed  to  the  counsel  and  examined.] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  Evarts.  We  will  treat  that  as  equivalent  to  Order  No.  17,  unless  some 
difference  should  appear. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  There  is  no  difference,  I  believe,  and  it  is  the  same 
as  is  set  out  in  the  answer.     Do  you  desire  to  have  it  read  1 

Mr.  Johnson.  The  manager  will  read  it,  if  he  pleases. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler  read  as  follows  : 

[General  Orders  No.  15.1 

War  Department,  Adjutant  General's  Office, 

Washington,  March  12,  1868. 
The  following  extract  of  an  act  of  Congress  is  published  for  the  information  and  govern- 
ment of  all  concerned  : 

[Public— No.  85.] 

AN  ACT  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 

1868,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Sec.  2.  And  he  it  further  enacted.  That  the  headquarters  of  the  General  of  the  army  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  at  the  city  of  Washington,  and  all  orders  and  instructions  relating  to 
military  operations  issued  by  the  President  or  Secretary  of  War  shall  be  issued  through  the 
General  of  the  army,  and,  in  case  of  iiis  inability,  through  the  next  in  rank.  The  General  of 
the  army  shall  not  be  removed,  suspended,  or  relieved  from  command,  or  assigned  to  duty 
elsewhere  than  at  said  headquarters,  except  at  his  own  request,  without  the  previous  approval 
of  the  Senate  ;  and  any  orders  or  instructions  relating  to  military  operations  issued  contrary 
to  the  requirements  of  this  section  shall  be  null  and  void  ;  and  any  officer  who  shall  issue 
orders  or  instructions  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor  in  office  ;  and  any  officer  of  the  army  who  shall  transmit,  convey,  or  obey  any 
orders  or  instructions  so  issued  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section,  knowing  that  such 
orders  were  so  issued,  shall  be  liable  to  imprisonment  for  not  less  than  two  nor  more  than 
twenty  years,  upon  conviction  thereof  in  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  section  three  of  the  joint  resolution  relative  to 
appointments  to  the  Military  Academy,  approved  June  16,  1866,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby 

repealed. 

******* 

Sec.  5.  Andhe  it  further  enacted,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  officers  of  the  army  and 
navy  and  of  the  Freedmeu's  Bureau  to  prohibit  and  prevent  whipping  or  maiming  of  the  per- 
son as  a  punishment  for  any  crime,  misdemeanor,  or  offence,  by  any  pretended  civil  or  mili- 
tary authority  in  any  State  lately  in  rebellion,  until  the  civil  government  of  such  State  shall 
have  been  restored,  and  shall  have  been  recognized  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

Sec.  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  military  forces  now  organized  or  in  service  in 
either  of  the  States  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama, 
Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Texas,  be  forthwith  disbanded,  and  that  the  further  oiganization, 
ai"ming,  or  calling  into  service  of  the  said  militia  forces,  or  any  part  thereof,  is  hereby  pro- 
hibited, under  any  circumstances  whatever,  until  the  same  shall  be  authorized  by  Congress. 


Approved  March  2,  1867. 

By  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War : 

Official : 


E.  D.  TOWNSEND, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General, 

E.  D.  TOWNSEND, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General. 


238  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  You  are  still  in  command  of  the  'department,  as  I  understand  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross»examined  by  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  The  paper  whicli  you  Lad,  and  which  was  read  by  the  President  on  that 
day,  was  marked  "  Orders  No.  17,"  was  it  ? 

A.  15  or  17. 

Q.  This  is  15  ;  is  the  other  17  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was,  but  I  will  not  be  sure. 

Q.  In  that  paper  marked  No.  17  was  the  whole  appropriation  act  printed  and 
set  out,  and  was  it  in  other  respects  like  this  1 

A.  In  other  respects  like  that.  There  is  one  thing  I  wish  to  .^tate.  The 
copy  on  file  in  my  office  contains  the  appropriation  bill,  and  I  may  have  con- 
founded them.     It  is  numbered  17. 

Q.  And  it  is  your  impression  that  the  paper  read  by  you  at  the  President's 
was  the  same  you  had  1 

A.  That  is  my  impression,  although  it  may  have  been  that  now  before  you. 
I  cannot  say. 

Q.  As  I  understand  you,  when  the  document  No.  17  was  sent  to  the  officers 
of  the  army,  there  was  a  discussion  among  them,  you  said? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  I  see  this  document  contains  no  construction  of  that  act,  but  simply  gives 
the  act  for  their  information  ;  is  that  so  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Upon  reading  the  act,  then,  a  discussion  arose  among  the  officers  of  the 
army  ? 

A   Yes. 

Q.  As  to  its  meaning,  or  what  1 

A.  A  discussion  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  what  an  officer's  obligations  were 
under  that  act. 

Q.  You  had  received  no  instructions  from  the  War  Department  or  elsewhere 
except  what  are  contained  in  that  document  itself? 

A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  It  left  you,  then,  to  construe  the  act  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Upon  that  you  say  that  to  settle  your  doubts  you  applied  to  an  eminent 
lawyer  ? 

A.  I  had  no  doubt  myself,  but  to  satisfy  the  doubts  of  others. 

Q.  You  applied  to  an  eminent  lawyer  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  gentleman  whom  you  applied  to  was  Mr.  Robert  J.  Walker? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  he  that  advised  you  that  you  were  bound  to  obey  only  orders 
coming  through  General  Grant,  whether  it  was  constitutional  or  unconstitutional 
to  send  orders  in  that  way  ? 

A.  The  question  of  Constitution  was  not  raised ;  it  was  only  u  question  of 
whether  we  were  bound  by  that  order. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  the  answer  was  "  constitutional  or  not  con- 
stitutional," in  your  response  to  General  Butler  ? 

A.  I  made  a  mistake,  then.  The  question  was  whether  we  were  bound  by 
it,  and  I  should  like  to  correct  it. 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLKK.  You  may  do  so. 

Mr.  Sta.xukrv.  Certainly.  (To  the  witness.)  You  said  in  your  former  answer 
that  the  advice  was  that  you  were  bound  to  obey  it  whether  it  was  constitu- 
tional or  not. 

A.  Until  it  was  decided.  We  had  no  right  to  judge  of  the  Constitution — the 
officers  had  not. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  239 

Q.  That  was  tlio  advice  you  got  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Until  it  was  decided — decided  by  whom  and  where  ? 

A.  By  the  Supreme  Court;  and  not  only  that,  after  the  decision  is  made  it 
must  be  promulgated  to  us  in  orders  as  null  and  void,  and  no  longer  operating. 

Q.  When  you  said  to  the  President  that  he  had  approved  something,  did  you 
speak  in  reference  to  that  Order  No.  17  which  contained  the  whole  of  the  act  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Wliat  did  you  mean  to  say — that  he  had  approved  the  order,  or  had 
approved  the  act  1 

A.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  the  order  and  the  act  are  the  same  thing ;  and 
if  you  will  observe,  it  is  marked  "  approved."     That  means  by  the  President. 

Q.  What  is  marked  "  approved,"  the  order  or  the  act  ? 

A.  The  act  is  marked  "  approved."  The  order  contains  nothing  bixtthe  act ; 
not  a  word  besides. 

Q.  Then  the  approval  that  you  referred  to  was  to  the  act  ? 

A.   I  consider  the  act  and  the  order  the  same. 

Q.  But  the  word  "  approved"  you  speak  of  was  to  the  act  1 

A.  Of  course ;  but  as  far  as  we  are  concerned  in  the  army  the  act  and  the 
order  are  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Mr.  President,  we  now  offer  a  duly  authenticated  copy 
of  General  Emory's  commission  : 

The  President  of  the  United  States,  to  all  who  shall  see  these  presents  greeting  : 

Know  ye,  that  I  do  hereby  confer  on  William  H.  Emory,  of  the  army  of  the  United  States, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  the  rank  of  major  general  by  brevet  in  said 
army,  to  rank  as  such  from  the  ]iith  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  18155,  for  gallant 
and  meritorious  services  at  the  battle  of  Cedar  Creek,  Virginia ;  and  I  do  strictly  charge  and 
require  all  officers  and  soldiers  to  obey  and  respect  him  accordingly  ;  and  he  is  to  observe  and 
follow  such  orders  and  directions  from  time  to  time  as  he  shall  receive  from  me  or  the  future 
President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  other  ofticers  set  over  him  accordiug  to  law, 
and  the  rules  and  discipline  of  war.  This  commission  to  continue  in  force  during  the  plea- 
sure of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being. 

Given  under  my  hand  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  17th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  1866,  and  of  the  niuety-tirst  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
[Seal  of  the  War  Department.  ]  , 

By  the  President : 

EDWIN  M.  STANTON, 

Secretary  of  War 

This  is  duly  certified  from  the  department,  the  certificate  being  as  follows : 

W^AR  Dep.\ht.^ient,  Ar)JUT.\NT  General's  Office, 

March  24,  1868. 
It  appears  from  the  records  of  this  office  that  the  annexed  document  is  a  true  copy  of  the 
original  commission  issued  to  Brevet  Major  General  W.  H.  Emory,  Uuited  States  army, 
from  this  office. 

E.  D.  TOWNSEND, 
Assistant  Adjutant  General. 

Be  it  known  that  E.  D.  Townsend,  who  has  signed  the  foregoing  certificate,  is  an  assist- 
ant adjutant  general  of  the  array  of  the  United  States,  and  that  to  his  attestation  as  such 
full  faith  and  credit  are  and  ought  to  be  given. 

In  testimony  whereof  I,  E.  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and 
caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  War  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  be  atHxed  on 
this  24th  day  of  March,  ld68. 

[SEAL.]  E.  M.  STANTON,  Secretary  of  War. 


240  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

"We  also  offer  the  ordei-  assigning  Greneral  Emory  to  the  command  of  the 
department  of  Washington  : 

[Special  Orders,  No.  426.] 

Headqx'arters  Army  op  the  United  States, 
Adjutant  General's  Office,  Wushingion,  August  27,  1867. 
[Extract.] 

25.  Brevet' Major  General  W.  H.  Emory  will  forthwith  relieve  Brevet  Major  General 
Canby,  in  command  of  the  department  of  Washington,  and  by  direction  of  the  President  is 
assigned  to  duty  according  to  his  brevet  of  major  general  while  exercising  such  command. 
By  command  of  General  Grant. 

E.  D.  TOWNSEND, 
Assistant  Adjutant  General. 
Official : 

E.  D.  TOWNSEND, 
Assistant  Adjutant  General. 

We  now  offer  the  order  of  the  President,  under  which  General  Thomas 
resumed  his  duties  as  Adjutant  General  of  the  army  of  the  United  States  : 

ExECl'TIVE  MAN.>iION,   Washington,  D.  C,  February  13,  186S. 
General:  I  desire  that  Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas  resi;me  his  duties  as 
Adjutant  General  of  the  army  of  the  United  States. 
Respectfully  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
General  U.  S.  Grant, 

Commanding  Army  of  the   United  States    IVashington,  D.  C 

It  is  the  original  order. 

I  now  offer  the  original  letter  of  General  Grant  reque.sting  the  President  to 
put  in  writing  a  verbal  order  which  he  had  given  him  prior  to  the  date  of  this 
letter.     Both  the  letter  and  the  indorsement  by  the  President  are  original. 

Mr.  Sta.nbery.  Allow  us  to  look  at  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Certainly. 

[The  letter  was  handed  to  counsel,  and  after  examination  returned  to  the 
managers.  | 

Mr.  Manager  Wil.so.n.  I  will  read  it : 

Hf.adquarters  Army  of  the  United  St.\tes, 

IVashington,   D.  C,  January  24,  1868. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  very  respectfully  to  request  to  have  in  writing  tiie  order  whicli  the 
President  gave  me  verbally  on  Sunday,  tlie  19th  instant,  to  disregard  tiie  orders  of  Hon.  E. 
M.  Stanton  as  Secretary  of  War  until  I  know  from  the  Pre.siileut  himself  that  they  were  his 
orders. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  vour  obedient  servant, 

U.  S.  GRANT,  General. 
His  Excellency  A.  Johnson, 

President  of  the  United  States. 

Upon  which  letter  is  the  following  indorsement  : 

ExEcuTivF,  Mansion, 
Washington,  I).  C,  January  2\),  1868. 
Andrew  Johnson,  rrcsidvnt  of  the  United  States. 

In  reply  to  request  of  General  Grant  of  the  24th  .January,  186S,  the  President  does  so,  as 
follows : 

As  requested  in  this  communication.  General  Grant  is  instructed  in  writing  not  to  obey 
any  order  from  the  War  iJepartment  assvuiied  to  be  issued  by  the  direction  of  the  President, 
unless  such  order  is  known  by  tlie  General  couiuianding  the  armies  of  the  United  States  to 
liave  be(!n  authorized  by  the  Executive. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Mr.  Cameron.  I  should  be  glad  to  have  that  read  by  the  Clerk. 
Tlu!  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  re;id  the  order. 
The  Sect etary  read  the  letter  of  Cieueral  Grant  and  the  indorsement  last  read 
by  Mr.  Manager  Wilson. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  24 1 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  The  next  document  wliicli  we  produce  is  a  letter 
■written  by  the  President  of  the  Unittjd  States  to  General  Grant  of  dat(!  of  Feb- 
ruary 10,  1S6S.  It  is  the  original  letter,  and  I  send  it  to  counsel  that  they  may 
examine  it. 

[The  letter  was  handed  to  the  counsel  for  tlie  President,  and  examined  by 
them.] 

]\tr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  it  appea4s  that  this  is  a  letter  purporting 
to  be  a  part  of  a  correspondence  between  General  Grant  and  the  President.  I 
ask  the  honorable  managers  whether  it  is  their  intention  to  produce  the  entire 
correspondence  ? 

Mr.  Mana^-er  WiLSON.  It  is  not  our  intention  to  produce  anything  beyond 
this  letter  which  we  now  offer. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  No  other  part  of  the  correspondence  but  this  letter? 

Mr.  IManager  Wilson.  That  is  all  we  propose  now  to  offer. 

[The  letter  was  returned  to  the  managers.] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  wish  the  honorable  managers  to  state  what  is  the  pur- 
pose of  introducing  this  letter '?  What  is  the  object  ?  W^hat  is  the  relevancy  ? 
What  does  it  relate  to  ? 

]\[r.  IManager  AYiLSON.  I  may  state  that  the  special  object  we  have  in  view  in 
the  introduction  of  this  letter  is  to  show  the  President's  owai  declaration  of  his 
intent  to  prevent  the  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Stanton,  resuming  the  duties  of 
the  office  of  Secretaiy  of  War,  notwithstanding  the  action  of  the  Senate  on 
his  case,  and  the  requirement  of  the  tenure  of-office  bill.     Do  you  desire  it  read  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Certainly,  if  it  is  to  come  in. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  I  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  the  letter,  as  follows  : 

E.XECUTivE  Mansion,  February  10,  1868. 

General:  The  extraordinary  character  of  your  letter  of  the  3d  instant  would  seem  to 
preclude  any  reply  on  my  part ;  but  the  manner  in  which  publicity  has  been  f>'iven  to  tlie 
conespondeiice  of  which  that  letter  forms  a  part,  and  the  grave  cjuestions  which  are  involved, 
induce  me  to  take  <his  mode  of  giving,  as  a  proper  sequel  to  the  communications  wliich  have 
passed  between  us,  the  statements  of  the  five  members  of  the  cabinet  who  were  present  on 
the  occasion  of  oiir  conversation  on  the  14th  ultimo.  Copies  of  the  letters  which  they  have 
addressed  to  me  upon  the  subject  are  accordingly  herewith  enclosed. 

You  speak  of  my  letter  of  the  31st  ultimo  as  a  reiteration  of  the  "  many  and  gross  misre- 
presentations "  contained  in  certain  newspaper  articles,  and  reassert  the  correctness  of  the 
statements  contained  in  yoiu"  conununication  of  the  '^iSth  ultimo ;  adding — and  here  I  give 
your  own  words — "anything  in  yours  in  reply  to  it  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

^Vhen  a  controversy  upon  matters  of  fact  reaches  the  point  to  which  this  has  been  brought, 
furtlier  assertion  or  denial  between  the  immediate  parties  should  cease,  especialh' wiiere,  upon 
either  side,  it  loses  the  character  of  the  respectful  discussiou  wiiich  is  required  by  the  relations 
in  which  the  parties  stand  to  each  other,  and  degenerates  in  tone  and  temper.  In  such  a 
case,  if  there  is  noihing  to  rely  upon  but  the  opposing  statements,  conclusions  must  be  drawn 
trom  those  statements  alone,  and  from  ^vhatever  intrinsic  probabilities  they  afford  in  favor  of 
or  against  either  of  the  parties.  I  should  not  shrink  from  this  test  in  this  controversy  ;  but, 
fortunately,  it  is  not  left  to  this  test  alone.  There  were  five  cabinet  officers  present  at  the 
conversation,  the  detail  of  which,  in  my  letter  of  the  28th  ultimo,  you  allow  yourself  to  say 
contains  "  many  and  gross  misrepresentations."  These  gentlemen  heard  that  convorsatiiiu 
and  have  read  my  statement.  They  speak  for  themselves,  and  I  leave  the  proof  without  a 
word  of  comment. 

I  detm  it  proper,  before  concluding  this  communication,  to  notice  some  of  the  statements 
contained  in  your  letter. 

You  say  that  a  performance  of  the  promises  alleged  to  have  been  made  by  you  to  the  Pres- 
ident "would  have  involved  a  resistance  to  law,  and  an  inconsistency  with  the  wliole  history 
of  my  connection  with  the  suspension  of  itr.  Stanton."  You  then  state  that  you  had  fears 
the  President  would,  on  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  appoint  some  one  in  his  place  who 
would  embarrass  the  army  in  carrying  out  the  reconstruction  acts,  and  add  : 

"  It  was  to  prevent  such  an  appointment  that  I  accepted  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interiin,  and  uotfor  the  purpose  ot  enabling  you  to  get  rid  of  Mr.  Stanton  by  my  withholding 
it  from  him  in  opposition  to  law,  or,  not  doing  so  myself,  surrendering  it  to  one  wlio  would, 
as  the  statements  and  assumptions  in  your  communication  plainly  indicate  was  sought." 

16  I  P 


242  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

First  of  all,  yoii  here  ailinit  that  from  the  very  beginning  of  what  you  term  "the  whole 
history  "  of  your  connection  with  Mr.  Stanton's  susjiension,  you  intended  to  circumvent  the 
President.  It  was  to  carry  out  that  intent  that  you  accepted  tlie  ajipointment.  This  was 
iu  your  mind  at  the  time  of  your  acceptance.  It  was  not,  then,  in  obedience  to  the  order  of 
your  superior,  as  has  heretofore  been  supj)osed,  that  you  a.ssunied  the  duties  oi'  the  office. 
You  knew  it  was  the  President's  purpose  to  prevent  Mr.  Stanton  from  resuming  the  office  of 
Secretary  of  War;  and  j^ou  intended  to  defeat  that  purpose.  You  accepted  tlie  office,  not  in 
the  interest  of  the  President,  but  of  Mr.  Stanton.  If  this  purpose,  so  entertained  by  you, 
Lad  been  confined  to  yourself;  if,  when  accepting  the  office,  you  had  done  so  with  a  mental 
reservation  to  frustrate  the  President,  it  \vould  liave  been  a  tacit  deception.  In  the  etliics  of 
some  persons  such  a  course  is  allowable.  liut  you  cannot  stand  even  upon  that  (juestionable 
ground.  The  "history*'  of  your  connection  \vith  this  transaction,  as  written  by  yourself, 
places  you  in  a  different  predicament,  and  shows  that  you  not  only  concealed  your  design 
from  the  President,  but  induced  him  to  suppose  that  you  would  carry  out  his  purpose  to  keep 
Mr.  Stanton  out  of  office,  by  retaining  it  yourself  after  an  attempted  restoration  by  the  Sen- 
ate, so  as  to  require  Mr.  Stanton  to  establish  his  right  by  judicial  decision. 

I  now  give  that  part  of  this  "history"  as  written  by  yourself  in  your  letter  of  the  28th 
ultimo : 

"  Some  time  after  I  assumed  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  the  President 
asked  me  my  views  as  to  the  course  Mr.  Stanton  would  have  to  pursue,  in  case  the  Senate 
should  not  concur  in  his  suspension,  to  obtain  possession  of  his  office.  My  reply  was,  in  sub- 
stance, that  Mr.  Stanton  would  have  to  appeal  to  the  courts  to  reinstate  him,  illustrating  my 
position  by  citing  the  ground  I  had  taken  in  the  case  of  the  Baltimore  police  commissioners." 

Now,  at  that  time,  as  you  admit  in  your  letter  of  the  :^d  instant,  you  held  the  office  for  the 
very  object  of  defeating  an  appeal  to  the  courts.  In  that  letter  you  say  that  in  a'jcepting  the 
office,  onc!  motive  was  to  prevent  the  President  from  appointing  some  other  jierstin  who  would 
retain  possession,  and  thus  make  judicial  proceedings  necessary.  You  knew  the  President 
was  unwilling  to  trust  the  office  with  any  one  who  would  not,  by  holding  it,  compel  Mr. 
Stanton  to  resort  to  the  courts.  You  perfectly  understood  that  in  this  interview,  ' '  some  time" 
after  you  accepted  the  office,  the  President,  not  content  with  your  silence,  desired  an  expres- 
sion of  your  views,  and  you  answered  him  that  Mr.  Stanton  "would  have  to  appeal  to  the 
courts." 

If  the  President  had  reposed  confidence  before  be  knew  your  views,  and  that  confidence 
had  been  violated,  it  might  have  been  said  he  macle  a  mistake  ;  but  a  violation  of  confidence 
reposed  after  that  conversation  was  no  mistake  of  his  nor  of  yours.  It  is  the  tact  only  that 
needs  be  stated,  that  at  the  date  of  this  conversation  you  did  not  intend  to  hold  the  office 
with  the  ))urpose  of  forcing  Mr.  Stanton  into  court,  but  did  hold  it  then,  and  had  accepted  it, 
to  prevent  that  course  from  being  carried  out.  In  other  words,  you  said  to  the  President : 
"That  is  the  proper  course,"  and  you  said  to  yourself:  "  I  have  accepted  this  office  and  now 
hold  it  to  defeat  that  course."  Th(^  excuse  j'ou  make  in  a  subsequent  paragraph  of  that  let- 
ter of  the  2'^th  ultimo,  that  afterwards  you  changed  your  views  as  to  what  would  be  a  proper 
course,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  point  now  under  consideration.  The  point  is,  that  before 
you  clianged  your  views,  you  had  seci'ctly  determined  to  do  the  very  thing  which  at  last  you 
did — surrender  the  office  to  Mr.  Stanton.  You  nun*  liav^'  clianged  your  views  as  to  the  law, 
but  yon  cei  tuinly  did  not  change  your  views  as  to  the  course  you  had  marked  out  for  your- 
self from  the  beginning. 

I  will  only  notice  one  more  statement  in  your  letter  of  the  3d  instant — that  the  i)erform- 
aucc  of  the  promises,  which  it  is  alleged  were  made  by  you,  would  have  involved  you  in  the 
resistance  of  law.  I  know  of  no  statute  that  would  have  been  violated  had  you,  carrying 
out  your  promises  in  good  faith,  t<'iid('red  your  resignation  when  you  concluded  not  to  be 
made  a  i>.'Uty  in  any  legal  proceedings.     You  add  : 

"I  am  in  a  measure  conlirmed  iu  this  conclusion  by  your  recent  orders  directing  mo  to 
disobey  orders  from  the  Secretary  of  War,  my  superior  and  your  subordinate,  without  hav- 
ing countermanded  his  authority  to  issue  the  orders  I  am  to  disobey." 

On  the  24tli  ultimo  you  addres.sed  a  note  to  the  President,  requesting  in  writing  an  order 
given  to  you  verbally  five  days  before  to  disregard  orders  from  Mr.  Stanton  as  Secretary  ot 
War,  until  you  "knew  from  the  I'resident  himself  that  \\\vy  were  his  orders." 

On  the  viDth,  in  compliaiiie  with  your  request,  I  did  givc^  you  instructions  in  writing  "not 
to  obey  any  order  from  the  War  i)ep;utment,  assumeil  to  be  issued  by  direction  of  the  Presi- 
dent, unless  such  order  is  known  by  the  General  commanding  the  armies  of  the  United 
States  to  have  been  autliorized  by  the  Executive." 

There  are  some  orders  which  a  Secretary  of  War  may  issue  without  the  authority  of  the 
President;  there  are  others  which  he  issues  simply  as  the  agent  ot' the  President,  and  whicii 
piuport  to  be  "by  direction"  of  the  J'resident.  I"'or  such  orders  the  Presiiient  is  responsible, 
and  he  slnuild  therefoie  know  and  undersiaii<l  what  they  are  before  giving  such  "  ilirection." 
Mr.  Stanton  slates,  in  his  letter  of  the  1th  instant,  which  accompanies  the  pul)lished  corre- 
spondence, that  he  "  has  had  no  correspondence  with  tiie  Prt^sident  since  the  1:2th  of  August 
last;"  and  he  further  says  that  since  he  resumed  the  duties  of  the  office  lie  has  continued  to 
discharge  them  "witlK)Ut  any  jjcrsonal  or  written  communicaliou  with  the  President;"  and 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  243 

lio  acltis,  "  no  orders  have  been  issuod  from  this  depart nient  in  the  name  of  the  President 
with  my  knovvledjie,  and  I  liave  received  no  orders  from  liiiu." 

It  thus  sennas  that  Mr.  Stanton  now  discharges  tlie  duties  of  the  War  Department  without 
any  reference  to  the  President,  and  without  using  his  name. 

My  order  to  you  had  only  reference  to  orders  "assuuied  to  be  issued  by  the  direction  of 
the  President."  It  would  appear  from  Mr.  Stanton's  letter  that  you  have  received  no  such 
orders  from  hiin.  However,  in  your  note  to  the  Prt^sident  of  the  ;5t)th  ultimo,  in  which  you 
acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  written  order  of  the  29th,  you  say  that  you  have  been 
informed  by  Mr.  Stanton  that  he  has  not  received  any  order  limiting-  his  authority  to  issue 
orders  to  the  army,  according  to  the  practice  of  the  department,  and  state  that  "  while  this 
authority  to  the  War  Department  is  not  countei'manded,  it  will  be  satisfactory  evidence  to 
me  that  any  orders  issued  from  the  War  Department  by  direction  of  the  President  are  author- 
ized by  the  Executive." 

The  President  issues  an  order  to  yon  to  obey  no  order  from  the  War  Department,  purport- 
ing to  be  made  ''by  the  direction  of  the  President,"  until  you  have  referred  it  to  him  for  his 
approval.  You  reply  that  you  have  received  the  President's  order  and  will  not  obey  it ;  but 
will  obey  an  order  purporting  to  be  given  by  his  direction,  if  it  comes  from  the  War  Depart- 
ment. You  will  not  obey  the  direct  order  of  the  President,  but  will  obey  his  indirect  order. 
If,  as  you  say,  there  has  been  a  practice  in  the  War  Department  to  issue  orders  in  the  name 
of  the  President  without  his  direction,  does  not  the  precise  order  you  have  requested  and 
have  received  change  the  practice  as  to  the  General  of  the  army  .'  Could  not  the  President 
countermand  any  such  order  issued  to  you  from  the  War  Department  ?  If  you  should 
receive  an  order  from  that  department,  issued  in  the  name  of  the  President,  to  do  a  special 
act,  aiul  an  order  directly  from  the  President  himself  not  to  do  the  act,  is  there  a  doubt 
which  you  are  to  obey?  You  answer  the  ((uestion  when  you  say  to  the  President,  in  your 
letter  of  the  3d  instant,  the  Secretary  of  War  ''is  my  superior  and  your  subordinate,"  and 
yet  j'ou  refuse  obedience  to  the  superior  out  of  deference  to  the  subordinate. 

Without  further  comment  upon  the  insubordinate  attitude  which  you  have  assumed,  I  am 

at  a  loss  to  know  how  you  can  relieve  yourself  from  obedience  to  the  orders  of  the  President, 

who  is  made  by  the  Constitution  the  Commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy,  and  is 

therefore  the  official  superior  as  well  of  the  General  of  the  army  as  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Respectfully  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

General  U-  S.  Grant, 

Commanding  Armies  of  the  United  Slates,  Washington,   D.  C. 

[Several  senators  had  gone  out  during  the  I'eading  of  the  letter.] 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.     We  uow 

The  Chief  Justice.  Before  the  honorable  manager  proceeds,  he  will  wait 
until  the  seats  of  the  senators  are  filled.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  inform 
senators  that  their  presence  is  wanted. 

Several  senators  having  returned  to  the  chamber. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorable  manager  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  ask  the  honorable  manager  if  he  is  done  reading  all  that 
belongs  to  that  letter.  In  that  letter  certain  documents  are  referred  to  aa 
explanatory  of  it.     Do  you  propose  to  read  those  papers  1 

i\Jr.  Manager  WiLSON.  All  has  been  read  which  we  propose  to  offer. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  You  do  not,  therefore,  propose  to  offer  the  papers,  copies  of 
which  accompany  that  letter  and  which  are  referred  to  in  it  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  I  have  stated  to  the  counsel  that  we  offered  a  letter 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States.  It  has  been  read.  We  proposed  to 
oftVr  the  letter  ;    we  have  offered  it;  and  it  is  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  You  do  not  now  propose  to  offer 

Mr.  ilanager  Wilson.  The  entire  letter  has  been  read. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  do  not  understand  that.  We  ask  that  the  documents 
referred  to  be  read  with  that  letter.  They  accompany  it,  and  are  referred  to  ia 
it  and  explain  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  We  offer  nothing,  sir,  but  the  letter. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Then  we  object  to  it. 

Mr.  ^Manager  Wilson.  If  the  counsel  have  anything  to  offer  when  they  come 
to  present  their  case  we  will  then  consider  it. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  ask  it  as  a  part  of  the  letter.  Suppose  there  were  a 
postscript  there,  would  you  not  read  it  ? 


244  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  ^lanatjer  WlLSOX.     There  is  no  postscript.     That  settles  it. 

Mr.  Sta.nbeky.  But  there  is  matter  added  to  it. 

Mr.  Manager  WiLSON.  There  is  no  matter  added  to  it.  The  letter  is  there 
as  written  by  the  President. 

Mr.  Stanbekv.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  will  take  a  ruling  upon  that  point. 
On  the  first  page  of  the  letter  the  matter  is  referred  to,  which  I  will  read  : 

Gexkkal  :  The  pxtraordinai y  cliaiacter  of  your  letter  of  tlie  3d  instant  would  seem  to  pre- 
clude any  reply  on  my  part  ;  but  the  manner  in  which  publicity  has  been  p;iven  to  the  eorre- 
spoudeuce  of  which  that  letter  forms  a  part,  and  the  {^rave  (juestions  which  are  involved, 
induce  me  to  take  this  mode  of  giving-,  as  a  proper  sequel  to  the  communications  which  have 
passed  between  us,  the  statements  of  the  five  members  of  the  cabinet,  who  were  present  on 
the  occasion  of  our  conversation  on  the  14th  ultimo.  Copies  of  the  letters  which  they  have 
addressed  to  me  upon  this  subject  are  accordingly  herewith  enclosed. 

Again,  he  says  : 

There  were  iive  cabinet  officers  present  at  the  conversation,  the  detail  of  which,  in  my  letter 
of  the 'if^th  ultimo,  you  allow  yourself  to  say,  contains  "  many  and  gross  misrepresenta- 
tions "  These  gentlemen  heard  that  conversation,  and  have  read  my  stiatemeut.  They  speak 
for  themselves,  and  I  leave  the  proof  without  a  word  of  comment. 

That  is  an  answer  to  the  statement  referred  to,  and  made  a  part  of  the  letter. 

Mr.  Manager  WlL!sO\.  I  suppose  the  counsel  does  not  claim  that  this  is  not 
she  letter  cumplete.  We  propose  to  offer  nothing  beyond  that,  and  this  letter 
it  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  wish  to  make  the  point,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  that  the  gen- 
tlemen are  now  bound  to  produce  those  communications  as  a  part  of  that  letter. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  object  to  the  introduction  of  the  letter 
without  the  accompanying  papers  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  WiLSO.\.  1  submit,  Mr.  President,  that  the  objection  comes  too 
late,  even  if  it  would  have  been  of  force  if  made  at  the  proper  time.  The  letter 
has  been  submitted  and  read,  and  is  in  evidence  now. 

Mr.  StAi\bery.  We  assumed  that  you  were   going  to   read  the   whole  of  it. 

Mr.  Manager  WiLSON.  The  whole  ii"  the  letter  has  been  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  is  of  opinion  that  the  objection  may 
now  be  taken.  '  (To  the  counsel  for  resj)ondeiit.)  Do  you  object  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  letter  without  the  accompanying  papers  ] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  do,  sir. 

Mr.  EvAR'J'S.  Our  point  is  that  these  enclosures  form  a  part  of  the  communi- 
cation made  by  the  President  to  General  Grant ;  and  we  assumed  that  they 
would  be  read  as  a  part  of  it  when  the  letter  was  offered. 

Mr.  Manager  BiNciiiAivi.  We  desire  to  state,  Mr.  President,  that  we  claim  that 
we  are  under  no  obligation  by  any  rule  of  evidence  whatever,  in  introducing  a 
written  statement  of  the  accused,  to  give  in  evidence  the  statements  of  third 
persons  referred  to  generally  by  him  in  that  written  statement.  In  the  first 
place,  their  statements,  we  say,  would  not  be  evidence  against  the  President  at 
all.  They  would  be  hearsay.  They  would  not  be  the  best  evidence  of  what 
the  parties  afiirmed.  The  matter  contained  in  the  letter  of  the  PresiiU'iit  shows 
that  the  jiajters,  without  producing  them  here,  have  relation  to  a  question  of  fact 
between  himself  and  General  (Jrant,  which  question  of  fact,  so  far  as  the  Pre- 
sident is  concerned,  is  atHrmed  in  his  letter  by  himself  and  for  himself,  aiul 
concludes  him  ;  and  we  insist  that  if  forty  members  of  his  caliinet  were  to  write 
otherwise  it  could  not  affect  this  ([uestion.  It  concludes  liim  ;  it  is  his  own 
d(>claration  ;  and  the  matter  of  dispute  between  himself  and  (ieneral  Grant,  al- 
though it  is  referred  to  in  tliis  letter,  is  no  part  oi'  thr  matter  upou  which  w:e  rely 
in  this  accusation  against  the  President. 

l]i\  Stanbery  and  Mr.  Curtis.  We  rely  upon  it. 

Mr.  ]\Ianager  Binuham.  Of  course  the  gentlemen  rely  on  it;  but  they  ask  us 
to  introduce  matter  which  we  say  by  no  rule  of  evidence  is  admissible  at  all, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  245 

and  for  tlie  reason  which  I  have  stated  ah'eady;  it  is  not  the  hig^hest  evidence 
of  the  fact.  If  we  are  to  have  the  testimony  of  the  members  of  liis  cabinet 
about  a  matter  of  fact,  and,  as  I  said  before,  tliis  h'tter  discloses  that  it  is  a 
matter  of  fact,  I  claim  that  the  highest  evidence,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned, 
is  not  their  unsworn  letter,  but  is  their  sworn  testimony;  and  that  by  no  rule  of 
evidence  are  the  letters  admissible.  I  admit  that  if  the  letters,  according  to  the 
statement  here,  showed  a  statement  adopted  by  the  President  himself  in  regard 
to  the  matter  with  which  we  charge  him,  it  wonld  be  a  somewhat  different  ques- 
tion, although  it  would  not  take  it  then  entirely  out  of  the  rule  of  evidence;  but 
anybody  can  see  by  this  reference  that  it  is  not  the  point  at  all.  I  venture  to 
say  that  in  these  letters,  when  the  gentlemen  come  to  offer  them  in  evidence 
here  and  we  come  to  consider  them,  there  is  not  a  single  statement  of  any  cab- 
inet officer  whatever  that  will  in  any  manner  qualify  the  confession  of  the  Presi- 
dent written  upon  the  paper  now  read  that  his  purpose  was  to  prevent  the 
execution  of  the  tenure-of-office  act  and  prevent  the  Secretary  of  War,  after 
being  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  and  his  suspension  being  non-concurred  in,  from 
entering  upon  forthwith  and  resuming,  as  that  law  requires,  the  duties  of  his 
olhce.  That  is  the  point  of  this  matter.  We  introduce  it  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  the  President's  confession  of  his  intent,  and  we  say  (hat  in  every  point 
of  light  we  can  view  it,  for  the  reasons  I  have  already  stated,  the  letters  referred 
to  of  the  cabinet  ministers  are  foreign  to  the  case,  and  we  are  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  introduce  them,  and  in  our  judgment  have  no  right  to  introduce  them  at 
all,  being  wholly  irrelevant. 

.Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  President 

The  Chief  Justice.  Before  you  proceed  the  counsel  for  the  President  will 
pleas3  to  state  their  objection  in  writing. 

The  objection  was  reduced  to  writing  and  sent  to  the  desk. 

The  Chief  Jusiice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  objection  made  by  the 
counsel  for  the  President. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

The  counsel  for  the  President  object  that  the  letter  is  not  in  evidence  in  the  case  unless  the 
honoral)le  managers  shall  also  read  the  enclosures  therein  referred  to  and  by  the  letter  made 
part  of  the  same. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr,  Chief,  Justice,  is  the  question  now  before  your  honor  or 
befoi'e  the  court  1 

The  Chief  Justice.  Before  the  body. 

j\Ir.  Stanbery.  Before  the  body  1 

The  Chief  Justice.  Before  the  court. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  The  managers  read  a  letter  from  the  President  to  use  against 
him  certain  statements  that  are  made  in  it,  and  perhaps  the  whole.  We  do  not 
know  the  object.  They  say  the  object  is  to  prove  a  certain  intent,  with  regard 
to  the  exclusion  of  Mr.  Stanton  from  office.  In  the  letter  the  President  refers 
to  certain  documents  which  are  enclosed  in  it  as  throwing  light  upon  the  ques- 
tion, and  explaining  his  own  views.  Now,  I  put  it  to  the  honorable  senators  ; 
suppose  he  had  copied  these  letters  in  the  body  of  his  letter,  and  had  said,  just 
as  he  says  here,  "  I  refer  you  to  these  ;  these  are  part  of  my  communication," 
could  any  one  doubt  that  these  copies,  although  they  come  from  other  persons, 
Avould  be  admissible  .''  He  makes  them  his  own.  He  chooses  to  use  them  as 
explanatory  of  his  letter.  He  is  not  willing  to  let  that  letter  go  alone  ;  he  sends 
along  with  it  certain  explanatory  matter.  Now,  you  must  admit,  if  he  had 
taken  the  trouble  to  copy  them  himself  in  the  body  of  his  letter,  they  must  be 
read.  Suppose  he  attaches  them,  makes  them  a  part,  calls  them  "exhibits," 
affixes  them,  attaches  them  to  the  letter  itself  by  tape  or  seal  or  otherwise,  must 
they  not  be  read  as  part  of  the  communication,  as  the  very  matter  which  he  has 
introduced  as  explanatory,  without  which  he  is  not  willing  to  send  that  letter? 
Undoubtedly.     Does  the  form  of  the  thing  alter  it  ?     Is  he  not  careful  to  send 


246  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  documents,  not  in  a  separate  package,  not  in  another  communication,  but 
enclosed  in  the  letter  itself,  so  that  when  the  letter  is  read  the  documents  must 
be  read  ?  It  seems  to  me  there  cannot  be  a  question  but  that  they  must  read 
the  whole,  and  not  merely  the  letter,  for  it  was  the  whole  that  the  President 
sent  to  be  read  to  give  his  views,  and  not  merely  the  letter  unconnected  with 
these  documents. 

Mr.  Manager  WiLSON.  Mr.  President,  the  managers  do  not  care  to  protract 
this  discussion.  We  have  received  from  the  files  of  the  proper  department  a 
letter  complete  in  itself — a  letter  written  by  the  President,  and  signed  by  the 
President — in  which,  it  is  true,  he  refers  to  certain  statements  made  by  members 
of  the  cabinet  touching  a  question  of  veracity  pending  between  tlie  President 
and  General  Grant.  Xow,  we  insist  that  that  question  has  nothing  to  do  with 
this  case.  Everything  contained  in  the  letter  which  can  by  any  possibility  be 
considered  as  relevant  to  the  case  is  tendered  by  offering  the  letter  itself,  and 
the  statement  of  the  President  referring  to  the  alleged  enclosures  shows  that 
those  enclosm-es  relate  exclusively  to  that  question  of  veracity  pending  between 
himself  and  the  General,  and  are  in  nowise  connected  with  the  issue  pending 
between  the  President  and  the  representatives  of  the  people  in  this  case.  We 
are  willing  to  submit  this  point  without  further  discussion. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Does  the  honorable  manager  consider  himself  entitled 
to  read  an  extract  from  the  letter  containing  so  much  of  it  as  would  bear  upon 
his  immediate  object  without  reading  the  whole  letter? 

Mr.  Manager  WiLSON.  We  read  all  there  is  of  the  letter. 

The  Chief  Justice.  That  is  not  the  question.  Would  the  honorabb-  man- 
ager consider  himself  entitled  to  read  so  much  of  the  letter  as  bore  upon  his 
immediate  object  without  reading  the  whole? 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  I  will  state,  in  reply  to  the  question  propounded  by 
the  pre>ideut,  that  we,  of  course,  expect  to  use  the  letter  for  any  ])roper  pur- 
pose connected  with  the  issues  of  the  case. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  objection  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Senate.     The  Secretary  Avill  read  the  objection. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

The  counsel  for  the  President  object  that  the  letter  is  not  evidence  in  the  case  miless  the 
honorable  managers  shall  also  read  the  euclosures  therein  relerred  to  and  by  the  letter  made 
part  of  the  same. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  Mr.  President,  may  T  ask  a  question?  I  call  for  the  read- 
ing of  the  words  in  the  letter  relied  upon  now  for  this  jnirpose.  I  send  my 
question  to  the  Chair  in  writing. 

The  Chief  Jr  stice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  New  York. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  will  ph'ase  reud  the  words  in  the  letter  relied  upon  touch- 
ing enclosures. 

Mr.  Stanbery  read  as  follows  : 

Gknkral:  The  extraordinary  character  of  your  letter  of  the  M  instant  would  seem  to 
preclude  any  n^j^ly  on  my  ])art  ;  but  the  manner  in  which  publicity  has  been  o-iven  to  the 
correspondence  of  which  that  letter  forms  a  part,  and  the  grave  rpu'stions  wliicli  are  involved, 
induce  me  to  take  this  mode  (d'  giving,  as  a  ]iropi'r  sc(iiiel  to  the  roinniunications  whicii 
have  passed  between  us,  the  statements  of  the  tive  meiiihers  of  the  cabinet  who  were  })res- 
ent  on  the  occasion  of  our  conversation  on  the  Itth  ullimo.  C'opics  of  the  h'tlers  which 
they  have  addressed  to  me  upon  the  subject  are  accordingly  herewith  enclosed. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  objection  of 

the  counsel  for  the  President  be  sustained  will  say  "ay" 

]\rr.  Conn  ess.   1  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Tlie  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  objeclion  of 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  247 

the  counsel  for  the  President  be  sustained  will  answer  "yea"  as  your  names 
are  called;   those  of  the  contrary  opinion  will  answer  "nay." 

Mr.  Drake.  I  ask  for  information,  Avhether,  if  this  objection  is  sustained,  it 
has  the  effect  of  ruling  out  the  letter  as  evidence  altogether? 

The  Chikf  Justice.  It  has. 

Mr.  Anthony.  Mr.  President,  I  Avould  desire,  if  it  is  proper,  that  the  ques- 
tion should  be  put  in  a  diffei-ent  form ;  that  it  should  be  an  affirmative  vote. 

The  Chief  Justice.  This  is  an  affirmative  form. 

INIr.  OoNNEsS.  I  wish  the  Chair  would  state  the  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  objection 
of  the  counsel  for  the  President  be  sustained  will,  as  your  names  are  called, 
answer  "yea;"  those  of  the  contrary  opinion,  "nay."  If  the  yeas  carry  it  the 
effect  will  be  to  exclude  the  evidence.  If  the  nays  carry  it  the  eflFect  will  be  to 
admit  it. 

Mr.  Evarts.  To  exclude  it,  unless  the  enclosures  are  also  offered,  if  our 
objection  prevail. 

Mr.  Anthony.  Mr.  President,  perhaps  I  am  rather  dull,  but  I  do  not  \n-e- 
cisely  understand  the  effect  of  the  decision  of  this  question.  A  negative  vote 
admits  the  evidence,  I  understand. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  does. 

Mr.  Anthony.  And  an  affirmative  vote  excludes  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Unless  the  enclosures  are  produced  and  read. 

Mr.  Henderson.  Mr.  President,  listening  to  the  question  asked  by  the  sen- 
ator from  Rhode  Island,  I  presume  he  desires  to  know  whether  the  letter  with 
the  enclosures  can  afterward  be  read  as  evidence,  even  if  the  objection  be  sus- 
tained. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Undoubtedly  it  excludes  the  evidence  only  in  the  case 
that  the  enclosures  be  not  read. 

Mr.  Henderson.  So  I  understand. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  Secretary.)     Call  the  roll. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll  down  to  the  name  of  Mr.  Cameron. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  do  not  think  the  question  is  understood. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  roll  is  being  called. 

Mr.  Johnson.  The  question  is  not  understood,  evidently. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  Secretary.)  Proceed  with  the  call.  The  call 
of  the  roll  cannot  be  interrupted. 

The  Secretary  concluded  the  calling  of  the  roll,  and  the  result  was — yeas  20, 
nays  29  ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Bayard,  Conklin^,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Henderson, 
Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross, 
Spra^ue,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — 20, 

Nays — Messrs.  Anthony,  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Cragin,  Drake,  Edmnnds,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Frelincfhuysen,  Howard,  Howe,  Moro;an,  Mor- 
rill of  Maine,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Stewart, 
Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  and  Wilson — 29. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Harlan,  Morton,  Saulsbury,  Wade,  and  Yates— 5. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  20  and  the  nays  29.  So 
the  objection  is  not  sustained. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  I  now  offer  the  letter  in  evidence,  it  having  already 
been  read,  i  now  offer  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  appointment  of  the  President 
appointing  Lorenzo  Thomas  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  as  certified  to  by 
General  Thomas.  I  will,  however,  in  the  first  place,  submit  it  to  the  counsel 
for  examination,  [submitting  the  paper  to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.]  I 
call  the  attention  of  counsel  to  one  thing  in  connection  with  that  letter,  and  that 
is,  we  offer  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  General  Thomas  attempted  to  act 
as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  that  his  signature  as  such  is  attached  to 


248  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

that  copy.     Tf  we  are  not  called  upnu  to  prove  his  siguature,  of  course  we  shall 
not  introduce  any  testimony  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Ci  KTis.  Stop  one  moment,  if  you  please.  Let  us  look  at  this  paper 
further. 

[The  counsel  for  the  respondent  having  examined  the  paper,  returned  it  to  the 
managers.] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  see  that  this  is  the  copy  Mr.  Stanton  requested.  Read 
the  indorsement,  if  you  please. 

]\Ir.  Manager  WiLSON.  Have  you  any  objection  to  its  being  read  ? 
Mr.  Stanbkry.  No;  we  want  it  read. 
Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  It  is  as  follows  : 

Executive  Mansion, 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  21,  18GS. 
Sir:  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  removed  fiom  office  as  Secretary  for 
the  Department  of  War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim,  and  wilf  immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to 
that  office. 

Mr.  Stanton  has  been  iustnicted  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and 
other  public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 
Respectfully  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas, 

Adjutant  General  United  States  Army,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Official  copy: 

Respectfully  furnished  to  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton. 

L.  THOMAS, 
Secretary  of  If'ar  ad  interim. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  want  the  indorsement  read. 

Mr.  Manager  WiLSOX.  The  indorsement  is,  "Received  2.10  p.  m.,  February 
21,  186S  ;  present  General  Grant." 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  indorsement  is  whose] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  It  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Stanton. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  1  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Is  that  fact  admitted  1 

]\[r.  Manager  Butler.  It  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Stanton. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  We  next  offer  copies  of  the  order  removing  ^Ir.  Stan- 
ton 9,nd  the  letter  of  authority  appointing  General  Thomas,  with  certain  indorse- 
ments thereon,  forwarded  by  the  President  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for 
bis  information.  [The  document  was  handed  to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent, 
and  afterward  returned  by  them  to  the  managers.]  Have  the  counsel  for  the 
respondent  any  objection  to  the  introduction  of  that  document?  If  not,  I  ask 
that  it  may  be  read  by  the  Secretary. 

The  Chirk  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  paper. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

[Copy.] 

Executive  Mansion, 
Washington,  D.  C,  February -.i],  1863. 
Sir  :  r)y  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  nui  as  I'resident  by  the  Coustitutiou 
and  laws  iif  tlie  I'nited  States,  you  are  hereby  removed  fniin  office  as  Secretary  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  ^\■ar,  and  vdur  fiuictidns  as  such  will  tenninati'  uptm  receipt  of  tiiis  communication. 
You  will  transfer  to  Brevet  Major  (icneral  Lorenzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  CJeneral  of  the  army, 
who  has  tliis  day  been  autliorizeii  and  tunpowered  to  act  as  Secii-tary  of  War  ad  interim,  all 
records,  books,  'i)ai)ers,  and  other  public  property  now  iu  your  custody  and  charge. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
Hon.  E.  M.  Stanton,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Official 

W.  G.  I^IOORE,  United  States  Arms. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  249 

[Copy.] 

ExECUTivK  Mansiov, 
Wnshinaton,  D.  C,  February  21,  18S8. 
Sir  :  Hon.  Edwiu  M.  Stauton  having  been  this  day  removed  from  office  as  Secretary  for 
the  Department  of  War,  you  are  liereby  authorized   and   empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim,  and  will  immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to 
tliat  otiice. 

]Mr.  Stanton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers,  and  other 
public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 
Kespectfully,  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
Brevet  Major  General  Lorenzo  Thomas, 

Adjutant  General  United  States  Army,   Washington,  D.  C. 
Official : 

W.  G.  MOORE,  United  States  Army. 

February  2],  1868. 

Respectfully  referred  to  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  for  his  information. 

By  order  of  the  President : 

W.  G.  MOORE,  United  States  Army. 

Treasury  Department,  Fehruary  29,  1868. 
I  certify  the  within  to  be  true  copies  of  the  copies  of  orders  of  the  President  on  file  in  this 
department  for  the  removal  of  Edwin  M.  StantDU  from  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War  and  the  appointment  of  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  be  Secretary  ad  interim. 

H.  McCULLOCH,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  we  have  here  now  an  official  copy  of 
General  Order  No.  17,  of  which  General  Emory  spoke,  and  we  now  offer  it,  so 
that  there  may  be  no  mistake  that  this  document  and  the  one  shown  to  him  are 
the  same  so  far  as  regards  the  point  at  issue.  [The  document  was  handed  to 
the  counsel  for  the  respondent,  and  presently  returned  to  the  managers.]  Do 
you  want  it  read? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  0,  no. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  we  offer  it  without  reading  it. 

The  document  is  as  follows  : 

[General  Orders  No.  17.] 

War  Department,  Ai>jutant  General's  Office, 

IVashingfon,  March  14,  1867. 

The  following  acts  of  Congress  are  published  for  the  information  and  government  of  all 
concerned : 

!.  An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  Military  Academy  for  the  year 
ending  June  30,  18(38. 

II.  An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1868. 

HI.  An  act  making  appropriations  for  fortifications  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1868. 

L— [Public— No.  54.] 

AN  ACT  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  Military  Academy  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  June  30,  1868,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Be  it  enact  d  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  following  sums  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  appropriated,  out 
of  any  money  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  for  the  support  of  the  Military 
Academy  fur  the  year  ending  the  30th  of  June,  1868  : 

For  pay  of  officers,  instructors,  cadets,  and  musicians,  $154,840. 

For  commutation  of  subsistence,  $5,050. 

For  pay  in  lieu  of  clothing  to  officers'  sei-vants,  $156. 

For  current  and  ordinary  expenses,  $66,467. 

For  increase  and  expense  of  library,  $3,000. 

For  expenses  of  Board  of  Visitors,  $5,000. 

For  forage  for  artillery  and  cavalry  horses,  $9,000. 

For  horses  for  artillery  and  cavalry  practice,  $1,000. 

For  repairs  of  officers'  quarters,  $5,000. 

For  targets  and  batteries  for  artillery  practice,  $500. 


250  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

For  furniture  of  cadets'  liospital,  $-200. 

For  gas  i)ii)es,  gasometers,  aud  retorts,  $600. 

For  materials  for  ([itarters  for  subalteru  officers,  $5,000. 

For  ventilating  and  heating  the  barracks  and  other  academic  buildings  ;  improving  the 
a))paratus  for  cooking  for  the  cadets ;  repairing  the  hospital  buildings,  including  the  introduc- 
tion of  baths  for  the  sick,  the  construction  of  water-closets  in  the  library  building,  and 
new  furniture  for  the  recitation-rooms,  $40,000. 

For  purchase  of  fuel  for  cadets'  mess-hall,  $:i,000. 

For  the  removal  and  enlargement  of  the  gas-works,  $20,000. 

For  additional  appropriations,  for  which  estimates  were  not  made  last  year: 

For  enlarging  cadet  laundry,  $5,000. 

For  furniture  for  soldiers'  ho.spital,  $100. 

For  increasing  the  supply  of  water,  replacing  mains,  «S:c.,  $1.5,000. 

For  ice-house  and  additional  store  and  .servants'  rooms,  $7,500. 

For  tire-proof  building  for  public  offices,  $15,000. 

For  breast-high  wall  of  water  battery,  .$5,000. 

For  permanent  derrick  on  the  wharf,  $2,500. 

Sec.  2.  Ami  he  it  further  enacted.  That  the  cadets  of  the  Military  Academy  be  entitled  to 
the  ration  now  received  by  the  acting  midshipmen  at  the  Naval  Academy,  commencing  at 
the  date  of  the  approval  of  the  law  authorizing  the  same. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  hereafter  the  assistant  professor  of  Spanish  shall 
receive  the  same  pay  and  emoluments  allowed  to  other  assistant  professors  of  the  academy. 

Sec.  4.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  no  part  of  the  moneys  appropriated  by  this  or  any 
other  act  shall  be  applied  to  the  pay  or  subsistence  of  any  cadet  from  any  State  declared  to 
be  in  rebellion  against  the  government  of  the  United  States,  appointed  after  the  1st  day  of 
January,  l.S(>7,  until  such  State  shall  have  been  restored  to  its  original  relations  to  the  Union. 

Approved  February  28,  ld67. 

II.— [Public— No.  85.] 

AN  ACT  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 

1868,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assemhled.  That  the  following  sums  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  appropriated, 
out  of  any  money  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  for  the  support  of  the  army 
for  the  year  ending  the  30th  of  June,  1868 : 

For  expenses  of  recruiting,   transportation  of  recruits,  and  compensation  of  citizen  sur- 
geons for  medidal  attendance,  .$300,000. 
For  pay  of  the  army,  $14,757,952. 
For  commutation  of  officers'  subsistence,  $2,228,982. 
For  counnutation  of  forage  for  officers'  horses,  $104,600. 
For  payments  in  lieu  of  clothing  for  officers'  servants,  $276,978. 
For  payments  to  discharged  soldiers  for  clothing  not  drawn,  $200,000. 
For  contingencies  of  the  army,  $100,000. 
For  artificial  limbs  for  soldiers  and  .seamen,  $70,000. 
For  army  medical  umseum,  $10,000. 

For  medical  works  for  library  of  Surgeon  General's  office,  $10,000. 
For  expenses  of  Commanding  General's  office,  $10,000. 

For  repairs  and  improvements  of  armories  aird  arsenals  : 

For  arsenal  and  armory  at  Rock  Island.  Illinois,  $686,500. 

For  the  erection  of  a  bridge  at  Rock  Island,  Illinois,  as  recommended  by  the  Chief  of  Ord- 
nance, .$20(t,()0(» :  Hrocided,  That  the  ownership  of  said  bridge  shall  be  and  remain  in  the 
United  States,  and  the  Rock  Island  and  Pacilic  Railroad  Com])any  shall  have  the  right  of 
way  over  said  bridgi!  for  all  i)urposes  of  transit  across  the  island  and  river,  upon  the  condi- 
tion that  the  said  company  shall,  before  any  money  is  exjjendcd  by  tlu?  government,  agree 
to  pay  and  shall  secure  to  the  United  States,  first,  half  the  cost  of  said  bridge;  and  second, 
half  the  ex|)enses  of  keeping  said  bridge  in  repair  ;  and  ujjon  guaranteeing  said  conditions 
to  the  satisfaction  of  tin;  Secretarj-  of  War,  by  contract  or  otherwise,  the  said  company  shall 
have  the  free  use  of  said  bridge  for  purposes  of  transit,  but  without  any  claiui  to  ownership 
thereof. 

For  Watervliet  arsenal,  West  Troy,  New  York,  $38,200. 

For  current  expenses  of  the  ordnam-e  service,  $300,000. 

For  Allegheny  arsenal,  Pittsljurg.  IViuisylvania,  $34,000. 

For  ('haiii|)lain  arseiuil,  at  Vergennes,  A'ermont,  $800. 

For  Columbus  ar.senal,  Colunilms,  Ohio,  $139.()25. 

For  Fort  Momoe  arsenal.  Old  Point  Comfort,  Virginia,  $6,000. 

For  Fort  I'nion  arsenal.  Fort  Union,  New  Mexico,  $10,(100. 

For  Fraukford  arsenal,  liridesburg,  Pennsylvania,  $30,000. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  251 

For  Kennebec  arsenal,  Angusta,  Maine,  ftl,5"25. 

For  Indiiiuapolis  arsenal,  Indianapolis,  Indiana,  1169,025. 

For  Leavenworth  arsenal,  Leavenwortb,  Kansas,  |15,0tl0. 

For  New  York  arsenal.  Governor's  island,  New  York,  $1,200. 

For  Pikesville  arsenal,  Pikesville,  Maryland,  $800. 

For  St.  Louis  arsenal,  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  $()5,0()0. 

For  Washington  arsenal,  Washinji^ton,  District  of  Columbia,  SoOjOOO. 

For  Watertown  arsenal,  Watertown,  Massachusetts,  $21,(i()7. 

For  the  purchase  of  the 'Willard  Sears  estate,  adjoining)-  the  Watertown  arsenal  grounds, 
$49,700,  or  so  much  thereof  as  maybe  necessary;  and  the  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby  author- 
ized to  sell  at  public  auction  a  lot  of  land  belong^iug  to  the  United  States,  situated  in  South 
Boston,  if,  in  his  opinion,  the  same  is  not  needed  for  the  public  service,  and  pay  the  proceeds 
thereof  into  the  treasury. 

Bureau  of  Refugees,  Freedmen,  and  Abandoned  Lands: 

For  salaries  of  assistant  commissioners,  sub-assistant  commissioners,  and  agents,  $147,500. 

For  salaries  of  clerks,  $82,800. 

For  stationery  and  printing,  $(J3,000. 

For  quarters  and  fuel,  $200,000. 

For  commissary  stores,  $1,500,000. 

For  medical  department,  $500,000. 

For  transportation,  $800,000. 

For  school  superintendents,  $25,000. 

For  buildings  for  schools  and  asylums,  including  construction,  rental,  and  repairs,  $500,000. 

For  telegraphing  and  postage,  $18,000 :  Provided,  That  the  Commissioner  be  hereb3'  author- 
ized to  apply  any  balance  on  hand,  at  this  date,  of  the  refugees  and  freedmen's  fund, 
accounted  for  in  his  last  annual  report,  to  aid  educational  institutions  actually  incorporated 
for  loyal  refugees  and  freedmen:  And  provided  further,  That  no  agent  or  clerk  not  heretofore 
authorized  by  law  shall  receive  a  monthly  allowance  exceeding  the  sum  of  $200. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  headquarters  of  the  General  of  the  army  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  at  the  city  of  Washington,  and  all  orders  and  instructions  relating  to 
military  operations  issued  by  the  President  or  Secretary  of  War  shall  be  issued  through  the 
General  of  the  army,  and,  in  case  of  his  inability,  through  the  next  in  rank.  The  General 
of  the  army  shall  not  be  removed,  suspended,  or  relieved  from  command,  or  assigned  to  duty 
elsewhere  than  at  said  headquarters,  except  at  his  own  request,without  the  previous  approval 
of  the  Senate;  and  any  orders  or  instructions  relating  to  military  operations  issued  contrary 
to  the  requirements  of  this  section  shall  be  null  and  void;  and  any  officer  who  sliall  issue 
orders  or  instructions  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor  in  office;  and  any  officer  of  the  army  who  shall  transmit,  convey,  or  obey  any 
orders  or  instructions  so  issued  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section,  knowing  that  such 
orders  were  so  issued,  shall  be  liable  to  imprisonment  for  not  less  than  two  nor  more  than 
twenty  years,  upon  conviction  thereof  in  pny  court  of  competent  jurisdiction. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  section  three  of  the  joint  resolution  relative  to 
appointments  to  the  Military  Academy,  approved  June  16, 1866,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby, 
repealed. 

Sec.  4.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  sum  of  $150,000  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby, 
appropriated  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  be  disbursed 
by  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  the  erection  of  fire-proof  buildings  at  or  near  the  city  of  Jefler- 
sonville,  in  the  State  of  Indiana,  to  be  used  as  storehouses  for  government  property. 

Sec.  5.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  officers  of  the  army  and 
navy  and  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  to  prohibit  and  prevent  whipping  or  maiming  of  the  per- 
son as  a  punishment  for  any  crime,  misdemeanor,  or  offence,  by  any  pretended  civil  or  mili- 
tary authority  in  any  State  lately  in  rebellion  until  the  civil  government  of  such  State  shall 
have  been  restored  and  shall  have  been  recognized  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

Sec.  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  all  militia' forces  now  organized  or  in  service  in 
either  of  the  States  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama, 
Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Texas  be  forthwith  disbanded,  and  that  the  further  organization, 
arming,  or  calling  into  service  of  the  said  militia  forces,  or  any  part  thereof,  is  hereby  pro- 
hibited, under  any  circumstances  whatever,  until  the  same  shall  be  authorized  by  Congress. 

Sec.  7.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Paymaster  General  be  authorized  to  pay,  under 
such  regulations  afi  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  prescribe,  in  addition  to  the  am(mut  received 
by  them,  for  the  travelling  expenses  of  such  California  and  Nevada  volunteers  as  were  dis- 
charged in  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  or  Utah,  and  at  points  distant  from  the  place  or  places  of 
enlistment,  such  proportionate  sum  according  to  the  distance  travelled  as  have  been  paid  to 
the  troops  of  other  States  similarly  situated ;  and  such  amount  as  shall  be  necessary  to  pay 
the  same  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appro- 
priated. 

Approved  March  2,  1867. 


252  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Ill— [Public— No.  86.] 

AN  ACT  iiuikiiif^  appropriations  for  tlie  construction,  preservation,  and  repairs  of  certain 
fortifications  and  otlu-r  works  of  defence  for  the  fiscal  j-ear  ending  June  'M,  1^(58. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Reprcscntntiocs  of  ike  United  States  of  America  in 
Covgrcss  assemUcd,  Ttiat  tlie  foUowinor  sums  be,  and  tbey  are  liereby,  appropriated  out  of 
any  money  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated  for  the  construction,  preservation,  and 
repair  of  certain  fortifications  and  other  works  of  defence  for  the  year  ending  tlie  3Uth  of 
June.  L'^fiH: 

For  Fort  Scammel,  Portland,  Maine,  $50,000. 

For  Fort  Georf^es,  on  Hog-  Island  ledge,  Portland,  Maine,  §50,000. 

For  Fort  Wiuthrop,  Boston,  Massachusetts,  .$50,000. 

For  Fort  Warren,  iioston,  Massachusetts,  §50,000. 

For  fort  at  entrance  of  New  Bedford  harbor,  Massachusetts,  $30,000. 

For  Fort  Schuyler,  East  river.  New  York,  §5000. 

For  fort  at  Willett's  Point,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  New  York,  $50,000. 

For  fort  on  site  of  Fort  Tompkins,  Staten  Island,  New  York,  §50,000. 

For  fort  at  Sandy  Hook,  New  Jersey,  §50,000. 

For  repairs  of  Fort  Washington,  on  the  Potomac  river,  $25,000. 

For  Fort  Monroe,  Hampton  Roads,  Virginia,  §50,000. 

For  Fort  Taylor,  Key  West,  Florida,  §oO,000. 

For  Fort  Jetlersou,  Garden  Key,  Tortugas,  §50,000. 

For  Fort  Clinch,  Amelia  island,  Florida,  §25,000. 

For  Fort  at  I-'ort  Point,  San  Francisco  bay,  California,  §50,000. 

For  fort  at  Lime  Point,  California,  §50,000. 

For  fort  at  Alcatraz  island,  San  Francisco  bay,  California,  $100,000. 

For  Fort  Preble,  Portland  harbor,  Maine,  §50,000. 

For  Fort  McClary,  Portsmouth  harbor.  New  Hampshire,  §50,000. 

For  Fort  Independence,  Boston  harbor,  Massachusetts,  §50,000. 

For  survey  of  northern  and  northwestern  lakes,  $150,000. 

I'or  Fort  Montgomery,  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Champhiin,  §25,000. 

For  purchase  and  repair  of  instruments,  §10,000. 

For  purchase  of  sites  now  occupied  and  lands  proposed  to  be  occupied  for  permanent  sea- 
coast  defences:  Prodded,  That  no  such  purchase  shall  be  made  except  upou  the  apjjroval  of 
its  expediency  by  the  Secretary  of  War  and  of  the  validity  of  the  title  by  the  Attorney 
General,  §50,000. 

For  purchase  of  sites  now  occupied  by  temporary  sea-coast  defences :  Provided,  That  no 
such  purchase  shall  be  made  except  upon  the  approval  of  its  expediency  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  and  of  the  validity  of  the  title  by  the  Attorney  General,  §25,01)0. 

For  construction  and  n^pair  of  barracks  and  (juarters  for  engineer  troops  at  the  depot  of 
engineer  supplies  near  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  $20,000. 

For  constiuciion  ami  repair  of  barracks  and  quarters  for  engineer  troops  at  the  depot  of 
engineer  supplies  at  Willett's  Point,  New  York,  §25,(K)0. 

.  Sec.  2.  And  he  itjurt/ier  enacted,  That  there  shall  not  be  over  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  fore- 
going appropriations  expended  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  30th  June,  ISOd,  and  the  resi- 
due thereof  shall  not  be  expended  till  otherwise  ordered. 

Sec.  3.  And  he  it  further  enacted.  That,  in  order  to  determine  the  relative  powers  of  resist- 
ance ot"  the  turret  and  the  broadside  systems  of  iron  clad  vessels  of  war,  ami  whether  or  not 
our  present  heaviest  guns  are  adetpiate  to  the  rajtid  destruction  of  the  heaviesl  plat(>d  ships 
now  built,  or  deemed  practicable  on  either  system,  and  whether  or  not  our  best  stone  torts 
will  resist  our  heaviest  guns,  and,  if  not,  what  increase  in  strength,  by  adding  either  stone 
or  iron,  or  variation  in  form,  is  necessary  to  that  end.  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Nav}-  are  hereby  authorized  to  detail  a  joint  board  of  not  less  than  six  comjie- 
tent  ofhcers,  thiee  from  tlu-  army  and  three  from  the  luivy,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  con- 
struct and  test,  by  firing  upon  them,  such  targets  as  thi'y  may  deem  necessary  for  the  pur- 
poses above  named.  And  the  Secretaiy  of  \\'ar  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  are  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  supply  the  board  with  such  facilities  for  this  purpo>e  as  they  may 
require :  Provided,  It  can  be  done  from  the  unexpended  funds  and  materials  now  at  their 
disposal,  the  expenses  to  be  borne  e((ually  by  the  War  and  Navy  He|iartiiieiits,  and  from 
such  funds  at  their  disposal  as  the  Si;cretary  of  War  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may 
designate  respectively. 

Approved  March  2,  18G7. 

By  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War  :  ' 

E.  D.  TOWNSEND, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General. 

Official : 

E.  D.  TOWNSEND, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  253 

Georgr  "W.  "Wallacr  sworn  and  exaininod  : 
By  Mr.  JIanager  Butler  : 

Question.  What  is  your  name  and  rank  in  the  army  of  the  United  States,  if 
you  have  any  ? 

Answer.  George  W.  Wallace,  lieutenant  colonel  of  the  twelth  infantry,  com- 
manding the  garrison  of  Washington. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  command  of  the  garrison  of  Washington  1 

A.  Since  August  last. 

Q.  What  time  in  August  ? 

A.  The  latter  part  of  the  month.     The  exact  date  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  State  if  at  any  time  you  were  sent  for  to  go  to  the  Executive  Mansion 
about  the  23d  of  February  last. 

A.  On  the  22d  of  February  I  received  a  note  from  Colonel  Moore  desiring 
to  see  me  the  following  morning  at  the  Executive  Mansion. 

Q.  Who  is  Colonel  ]\roore  ? 

A.  He  is  on  the  staff  of  the  President ;  an  officer  of  the  army. 

Q.  Does  he  act  as  secretary  to  the  President  ? 

A.  I  believe  he  does. 

Q.  You  received  that  note  on  the  night  of  the  22d ;  about  what  time  at 
night  ? 

A.  About  seven  o'clock  in  the  evening. 

Q.  Was  any  time  designated  when  you  should  go? 

A.  Merely  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Sunday  morning?     Did  you  go  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  morning  ? 

A.  About  ten  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Colonel  Moore  there? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  was  the  business  ? 

A.  He  desired  to  see  me  in  reference  to  a  matter  directly  concerning  myself. 

Q.  How  concerning  yourself? 

A.  Some  time  in  December  my  name  had  been  submitted  to  the  Senate  for 
brevets.  Those  papers  had  been  returned  to  the  Executive  Mansion,  and  on 
looking  over  them  he  was  under  the  impression  that  my  name  had  been  set 
aside,  and  his  object  was  to  notify  me  of  that  fact  in  order  that  I  might  make  use 
of  influence,  if  I  desired  it,  to  have  the  matter  rectified. 

Q.  After  that  did  he  say  anything  about  your  seeing  the  President? 

A.  I  asked  how  the  President  was.  He  replied  "Very  Avell;  do  you  desire 
to  see  him?"  to  which  I  replied  "Certainly;"  and  in  the  course  of  a  few 
moments  I  was  admitted  into  the  presence  of  the  Executive. 

Q.  Was  a  messenger  sent  in  to  know  if  he  would  see  yon  ? 

A.  I  am  unable  to  answer.  I  had  a  conversation  with  Colonel  Moore  at  the 
time.     He  notified  him. 

Q,.  Did  Colonel  Moore  leave  the  room  where  you  were  conversing  with  him 
until  you  went  in  to  see  the  President? 

A.  He  left  the  room  to  bring  out  this  package  of  papers.  No  other  object, 
that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Did  he  go  into  the  office  of  the  President  where  the  President  was  for 
that  purpose  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  passed  in  the  same  door  I  did. 

Q.  And  came  out  and  brought  a  package  and  explained  to  you  that  your 
name  appeared  to  be  rejected,  and  then  you  went  in  to  see  the  President? 

A.  I  did.     I  went  in  at  my  own  request. 


254  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  After  you  had  passed  the  usual  salutations,  what  was  the  first  thing  he 
said  to  you  1 

A.  Tlie  President  asked  me  if  any  changes  had  been  made  in  the  garrison 
within  a  short  time  ;  any  movement  of  troops. 

Q.  The  garrison  of  Washington  ? 

A.  The  garrison  of  Washington. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him? 

A.  I  re))lied  that  four  companies  of  the  twelfth  infantry  had  been  sent  to  the 
second  military  district  on  the  7tli  of  January,  and  beyond  that  no  other  changes 
had  been  made.  In  doing  so  I  omitted  to  mention  another  company  that  1  have 
since  thought  of, 

Q.  Had  he  ever  sent  to  you  on  such  an  errand  before  1 

Mr.  Curtis  and  Mr.  Evauts.  He  did  not  send  this  time. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Is  that  quite  certain? 

Jlr.  Curtis.  Yes;  it  is  proved. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Perhaps  we  shall  see  differently  when  we  get  through. 
(To  the  witness.)  Did  he  ever  get  you  into  his  room,  directly  or  indirectly,  in 
order  to  put  such  a  question  as  that  before  ? 

Mr.  Evarts.  That  we  object  to.     It  assumes  that  he  was  got  in  there. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  If  he  was  not  got  in,  how  was  he  there? 

Mr.  Evarts.  This  witness  has  said  that  upon  his  inquiry  how  the  Presi- 
dent was,  the  private  secretary  said:  "Would  you  like  to  see  him?"  and  the 
witness  said  "  Certainly,"  and  went  into  his  room.  If  that  is  being  got  into 
his  room,  directly  or  indirectly,  I  am  very  much  mistaken. 

Mr.  Manager  I3utler.  I  assume  one  theory,  Mr.  President,  and  the  counsel 
assume  another. 

Mr.  EvAR'is.     No;   I  follow  the  testimony.     I  assume  nothing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  again  say  that  I  assume  another  tlieory  upon  the 
testimony,  and  I  think  the  testimony  was  that  he  came  there  by  the  procure- 
ment of  the  President.  I  should  so  argue  to  the  Senate  if  it  become  my  opportunity 
to  argue;  but,  without  pausing  for  that,  I  will  ask  this  question  :  (To  the  wit- 
ness.) Were  you  ever  in  that  like  position  with  regard  to  the  President  before 
you  got  there  then  ? 

A.  Never. 

Q.  Did  he  say  to  you  anything  upon  this  subject:  "  I  asked  the  same  ques- 
tion of  your  commander,  General  Emory,  yesterday,  and  he  told  me  the  same 
as  you  do  ?  " 

A.  I  do  not  iniderstand  the  question. 

Q.  Did  he  say  to  you  that  he  had  asked  the  same  question  the  day  before  of 
General  Emory,  and  got  the  same  answer  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  speak  of  it  as  a  thing  that  he  desired  to  know,  or  a  thing  that  he 
did  know  already  ? 

Mr.  Evarts.   Wliat  he  did  say  is  the  question. 

Mr.  Stam!Krv.  AVe  object,  Mr.  Cliicf  Justice,  to  that  mode  of  examination 
in  chief.     That  way  of  examining  a  witness  is  altogether  new  to  us. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  not  ])ress  it,  sir.  I  always  desire  to  waive 
wherever  I  can.     (To  tlu;  witness  )      Was  there  anything  more  said  ? 

A.  Nothing  more  said  on  that  subject. 

Q.  On  your  part  or  his  ? 

A.   Neither. 

Q.  Did  you  find  out  next  day  that  you  had  not  been  rejected  by  the  Senate? 

Mr.  Stamjery.     What  has  that  got  to  do  with  it? 

Mr.  EvAirrs.      It  is  wholly  inunatcrial. 

Mr.  ^Manager  P)i TLKR.  Not  at  all.  'J'he  President  sends  for  an  officer  of 
the  army  through  his   secretary,  and  informs  him  that  the  Senate  has  rejected 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  255 

liim  ;  and  then  having  got  him  into  hi>s  presence  hegins  to  inquire  about  the 
movement  of  troops,  when  it  was  not  true  tliat  he  had  been  rejected. 

Tlie  Witness.  If  I  used  the  word  "rejected"  in  my  testimony  I  was  not 
aware  of  it.  I  do  not  know  that  that  was  the  expression  ;  and  when  I  come 
to  reflect  I  think  the  Lmguage  was  that  my  name  had  been  "  set  aside." 

Mr.  Manager  Eutlkr.     What  made  you  change  it? 

Mr.  Staxbery.     He  did  not  change  it.     He  said  "  set  aside"  before. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Do  you  say  now  that  you  did  not 
understand  that  you  were  rejected  1 

The  Witness.  That  my  name  was  set  aside.  My  own  view  of  the  matter 
was  that  I  had  been  rejected. 

Q.  If  that  was  your  view  why  did  you  change  the  hmguage  just  now  from 
"  rejected  "  to  "  set  aside  1" 

Mr.  Evarts.  He  did  not  change  it.  He  said  "  set  aside  "  before.  It  was 
you  that  changed  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  understand  what  he  says,  perfectly. 

Mr.  Evarts  and  Mr.  Stanbury.  So  do  we. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Why  did  you  interrupt,  sir,  and  say, 
"  Well,  I  do  not  know  that  I  did  say  '  rejected  V  " 

The  Witness.  I  have  a  perfect  right,  sir,  I  presume,  to  make  use  of  such 
language  as  I  think  proper  in  my  replies. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Undoubtedly.  I  also  have  a  right  to  ask  why  do  you 
use  it  1     I  do  not  object  to  the  right.     I  only  want  to  know  the  reason. 

The  Witness.  My  reason  was  to  correct  any  misapprehension  in  regard  to 
the  expression  of  Colonel  Moore.  My  own  view  was  that  it  amounted  to  a 
rejection  ;  but  he  said  "  set  aside  ;"  he  used  that  language,  I  believe. 

Q.  Did  he  make  any  difference  between  "set  aside"  and  "rejected,"  that 
you  know  of,  at  that  time  ? 

A.  That  is  a  question  I  never  thought  of. 

Q.  You  did  not  think  of  it  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  advise  you  to  use  influence  with  senators  to  get  yourself  confirmed  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  What  has  that  to  do  with  the  question — what  Colonel  Moore 
advised  him  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  In  order  to  show  whether  he  understood  that  he  was 
rejected,  because  there  was  no  occasion  to  use  influence  with  senators  if  be  did 
not  understand  that  he  was  rejected.  (To  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  Do 
you  continue  your  objections  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Certainly;  but  there  is  no  use  to  continue  it ;  you  keep  on 
asking  the  question  in  that  way.  [A  pause.]  Are  you  through  with  the 
witness,  Mr.  Manager? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  let  you  kuow  when  I  am,  sir.  [A  pause.]  I 
am  now  through  with  the  witness. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  So  are  we. 

jNIr.  Drake.  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  the  Senate  take  a  recess  for  ten 
minutes. 

The  motion  was  agi-eed  to  ;  and  the  Senate  resumed  its  session  at  two  o'clock 
and  forty-five  minutes  p.  m. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorable  managers  will  proceed  with  their  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  We  now  offer  a  certified  copy  of  the  order  restoring 
General  Thomas  to  the  duties  of  the  Adjutant  General's  ofl5ce. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Is  there  any  objection  to  the  order? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Has  not  that  been  put  in  before? 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  No,  sir  ;  this  is  the  order  of  the  General  of  the  army, 
ssued  in  pursuance  of  the  President's  request,  which  we  put  in  before. 


256  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Chtef  Jrs'i'icR.  TliP  Secretary  will  read  the  order. 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Headciuartrrs  Army  of  the  United  States, 

Washinirton,  D.  C,  February  14.  1868. 
Sir  :  General  Grant  directs  me  to  say  tliat  the  President  of  the  United  States  desires  you 
to  resume  j'our  duties  as  Adjutant  General  of  the  army. 

C.  B.  COMSTOCK, 
Brevet  Bri<Tadier  General,  A.  A.  G.  D.  C. 
General  L.  Thomas,  Adjutant  General. 

Olificial  copy  for  Hon.  E.  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War : 

L.  THOMAS,   Adjutant  General. 
Adjutant  General's  Office,  Fehruary  14,  18(38. 

William  E.  Chandler  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  Mr.  Chandler,  I  believe  yoii  were  once  Assistant  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  ? 

Answer.  I  was,  sir. 

Q.  From  what  time  to  wlint  time? 

A.  From  June,  1865,  until  the  30th  of  November,  1867. 

Q.  While  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  your  office,  did  you  learn  the  office 
routine  of  practice  by  which  money  was  drawn  from  the  treasury  for  the  use 
of  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  the  steps  by  which  money  could  be  drawn  from  the  treasury 
for  the  use  of  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  By  requisition  of  the  Secretary  of  War  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Ti-easury, 
which  requisition  passes  through  the  accounting  offices  of  the  department,  and 
is  then  honored  by  the  issue  of  a  warrant  signed  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  upon  which  the  money  is  paid  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States. 

Q.  Please  name  the  accounting  otlicers  through  whose  offices  it  will  pass. 

A.  The  Second  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  has  the  control  of  the  war  and 
navy  accounts.  Several  of  the  auditing  officers  pass  upon  war  requisitions — the 
Second  Auditor  and  the  Third  Auditor,  and  possibly  others. 

Q.  Please  trace  and  give  the  offices,  if  you  can,  through  which  a  requisition 
from  the  War  Department  lor  money  would  go,  from  one  office  to  the  other,  until 
the  money  would  get  back  to  the  War  Office. 

A.  My  attention  has  not  been  called  to  that  subject  until  now,  and  I  am  not 
sure  that  I  can  state  accuiately  the  process  in  any  given  case.  I\Iy  impression, 
however,  is  that  a  requisition  from  the  Secretary  of  War  would  come  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  pass  from  the  Secretary's  office  to  the  office  of 
the  Second  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether 
or  not  the  apjiropriation  upon  which  the  draft  was  to  be  made  had,  or  had  not, 
been  overdrawn.  The  requisition  would  pass  from  the  ofHce  of  the  Comptroller 
through  the  office  of  the  Auditor,  and  thence  back  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  Thereupon,  in  the  warrant  room  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
a  warrant  for  tin;  payment  (tf  the  money  would  be  issued,  which  would  al?;o  pass 
through  the  office  of  the  Comptroller,  being  countersigned  by  him.  Then  it 
would  pass  into  the  office  of  the  Itcgister  ot  ihe  Treasury  to  be  tlu're  registered, 
and  thence  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  who,  upon  this  requisition, 
would  issue  his  draft  for  the  payment  of  the  money.  This  is  substantially  the 
process,  although  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  stated  the  different  steps  accurately. 

Q.  Ought  it  not  to  go  to  the  Second  Auditor  first  ? 

A.  Quite  possibly  the  requisition  would  first  go  to  the  Auditor. 

Q.  The  Second  Auditor  and  then  the  Comptroller  1 

A.  The  Second  or  Third  Auditor,  and  then  to  the  Comptroller. 


IMPEACnMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  257 

Q.  Is  there  any  method  known  to  a^ou  by  which  the  President  of  the  United 
States  or  any  other  person  can  get  money  from  the  treasnry  of  the  United 
States  for  the  use  of  the  War  Department  except  through  a  requisition  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  ? 

A.  There  is  not. 

Q.  I  now  desire  to  ask  you  what  is  the  course  of  issuing  a  commission  to  an 
officer,  say  who  has  been  confirmed  by  the  Senate  1  What  is  the  official  routine 
in  the  Treasury  Department  1     I  suppose  it  is  the  same  for  all. 

A.  A  commission  is  prepared  in  the  department  and  signed  by  the  Secre- 
tary. It  is  forwarded  to  the  President  and  signed  by  him.  It  is  then  returned 
to  the  Treasury  Department,  where,  in  the  case  of  a  bonded  officer,  it  is  held 
until  his  oath  and  bond  have  been  filed  and  approved  ;  in  the  case  of  an  officer 
not  required  by  law  to  give  bond  the  commission  is  held  until  he  qualifies  by 
taking  the  oath.  It  is  my  impression  that  this  is  the  usual  form.  There  are 
some  officers  in  the  Treasury  Department  whose  commissions  are  countersigned 
by  the  Secretary  of  State  instead  of  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The 
Assistant  Secretaries,  for  instance,  have  commissions  which  are  countersigned 
by  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  not  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Q.  As  I  suppose  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury's  own  commission  is  ? 

A.  It  issues  from  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  I  suppose. 

Q.  On  the  20th  of  November,  1867,  was  there  any  vacancy  in  the  office  of 
Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  1 

A.  There  was  not,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  vacancy  up  to  the  30th  of  November  ? 

A.  There  was  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Edmund  Cooper  ? 

Mr.  Staxbery.  Will  the' honorable  manager  allow  me  to  ask  what  is  the 
object  of  this  testimony  about  Mr.  Cooper  ?     What  is  the  purpose  ? 

j\[r.  Manager  Butler.  The  object  is  to  show  that  one  of  the  ways  and  means 
described  in  the  eleventh  article  by  which  the  President  proposed  to  get  control 
of  the  moneys  of  the  United  States  appropriated  for  the  use  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment was,  against  law  and  without  right,  to  appoint  his  Private  Secretary 
Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Is  that  all  the  answer  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  answered  so  far.  If  you  have  any  other  ques- 
tion I  shall  be  very  glad  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Is  that  the  only  answer  you  make  to  the  question? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  is  a  sufficient  answer,  in  my  judgment,  for  the  time. 

Mr.  Evarts.  What  part  of  the  eleventh  article  is  this  applicable  to  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Both  the  eighth  and  the  eleventh  articles.  The  elev- 
enth article  charges  him  with — 

Unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive,  means  by 
which  he  should  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  forthwitli  resuming  the  functions  of  the 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  notwithstanding  the  refusal  of  the  Senate  to 
concur,  &c.  ;  and,  also,  by  further  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to 
devise  and  contrive,  means,  then  and  there,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An 
act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1868,  and  for  other  purposes,"  approved  March  2,  IHti?  ;  and  also  to  prevent  the  execution  of 
an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States," 
passed,  &c. 

And  in  order  to  get  the  means  of  doing  that,  he  wanted  to  control  the  purse 
as  well  as  the  sword,  and  he  wanted  his  man,  his  secretary,  if  in  no  warmer  and 
closer  relations  to  him,  to  be  in  the  office  of  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  now  by  law  being  allowed  to  sign 
warrants. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham  and  Mr.  Manager  WiLSO.x.      Then  the  eighth  article. 

17  I  p 


258  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then,  aa  my  associates  call  to  my  attention,  the 
eighth  article  charges  that — 

With  inteut  unlawfully  to  control  the  disbursement  of  the  moneys  appropriated  for  the 
military  service  and  for  the  Department  of  War,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1868 — 

He— 

did,  unlawfully  and  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  an  act,  &c. — 
Do  these  acts. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  No  ;  appointed  Thomas.  You  now  propose  to  prove  under 
that  that  he  appointed  Cooper,  or  tried  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  This  is  the  means  :  '•  with  intent  unlawfully  to  con- 
trol." 

Mr.  EvARTS  and  Mr.  Stanbery.  Did  what  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Did  unlawfully  and  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the 
tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1868,  and  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States — 

And  while  the  Senate  were  in  session,  not  to  go  on  Avith   the  verbiage,  appoint 
Lorenzo  Thomas. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  allegation  is  that  with  this  intent  which  you  have  stated, 
the  President  did — 

There  being  no  vacancy  in  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  and  with 
inteut  to  violate  and  disregard  the  act  aforesaid — 

Which  is  the  tenure-of-office  act — 

Then  and  there  issue  and  deliver  to  one  Lorenzo  Thomas  *a  [letter  of  authority  in  writing, 
in  substance  as  follows :  that  is  to  say. 

Now,  you  propose  to  prove  under  that,  that  there  being  no  vacancy  iu  the 
office  of  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  he  proposed  to  appoint  his  private 
secretary,  Edmund  Cooper,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  That  is  the 
idea,  is  it,  under  the  eighth  article?  We  object  to  this  as  not  admissible  under 
the  eighth  article.  As  by  reference  to  it  it  will  be  perceived,  it  charges  uotliing 
but  an  intent  to  violate  tlie  civil  tenure  act,  and  no  mode  of  violating  that  except, 
in  the  want  of  a  vacancy  in  the  War  Department,  the  appointment  of  General 
Thomas  contrary  to  that  act. 

As  for  the  eleventh  article  the  honorable  court  will  remember  that  in  our 
answer  we  stated  that  there  was  in  that  article  no  such  description,  designation 
of  ways  or  means,  or  attempts  at  ways  or  means,  whereby  we  could  answer 
definitely;  and  the  only  allegations  there  are  that,  in  pursuance  of  a  speech 
that  the  President  made  on  the  ISth  of  August,  186G,  he — 

Afterward,  to  wit,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  18G8,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  iu 
the  District  of  Cohuiibiii,  did,  unlawfully,  and  in  disregard  of  the  requirement  of  the  (Jonsti- 
tutiou  that  he  should  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  attempt  to  prevent  the 
executioii  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed 
March  2,  1867,,  by  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  con- 
trive means  by  which  he  should  prevent  Edwiu  M.  Stanton  from  fortlnvitii  resuming  the 
functions  of  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  notwithstanding  the  refusal 
of  the  Senate  to  concur  in  the  susi)eusion  theretofore  made  by  said  Andrew  Johnson  of  said 
Edwin  M.  Stanton  troin  said  ofUce  of  Secretary  for  the  Dejiartment  of  War;  and  also,  l)y 
further  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive  means, 
then  and  there,  to  prevent  the  ext!cution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  making  appropriations 
for  the  support  of  the  army  fur  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  'M,  18()8,  and  for  other  purposes," 
approved  March  2,  1867;  and,  also,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act 
to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,"  passed  March  2,  18i)7, 
whereby,  «!tc. 

The  only  allegation  here  as  to  time  and  principal  action,  in  reference  to  which 
all  these  unnamed  and  undcscribcd  ways  and  means  were  used,  is,  that  on  the 
2l8t  of  February,  ISGS,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  he  did  unlawfully,  and  in 
disregard  of  the  Constitution,  attempt   to   prevent  the   execution  of  the  civil 


IMPEACHMENT   OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  259 

tenure-of-office  act,  by  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving  and  attempting  to 
devise  and  contrive  means  by  which  he  should  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from 
resuming  his  place  in  the  War  Department.  And  now  proof  is  offered  here, 
substantively,  of  efforts  in  November,  18G7,  to  appoint,  in  the  want  of  a  vacancy 
in  the  office  of  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Edmund  Cooper. 
We  object  to  that  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  objection,  Mr.  President  and  senators,  is  twofold  : 
first,  that  the  evidence  is  not  competent ;  second,  that  the  pleading  is  not  suffi- 
cient. I  do  not  propose  now  to  discuss  the  question  of  pleading.  It  is  said 
that  the  pleading  is  too  general.  If  we  were  trying  an  indictment  at  common 
law  for  a  conspiracy,  or  for  any  acts  in  the  nature  of  a  conspiracy,  and  we  made 
the  allegation  too  general,  the  only  objection  to  that  would  be  that  it  did  not 
sufficiently  inform  the  defendant  under  it  what  acts  might  be  given  in  evidence  ; 
and  the  remedy  for  a  defendant  in  that  case  would  be  to  move  for  a  specifica- 
tion or  for  a  bill  of  particulars  ;  and  if  he  neglects  to  move  for  that,  the  court 
take  care  in  the  course  of  the  case,  if  any  surprise  is  upon  him,  because  of  evi- 
dence that  he  could  not  have  known  of,  or  could  not  have  expected  to  allow  him 
to  come  in  and  meet  that  new  evidence.  Therefore  indictments  tor  conspiracies 
are  generally  drawn  as  was  the  indictment  in  the  Martha  Washington  case, 
which  1  now  have  in  my  mind,  it  having  been  drawn  by  an  exceedingly  good 
pleader,  as  tradition  says,  giving  one  general  count,  and  then  several  specific 
counts,  or  setting  out  specific  acts  in  the  nature  of  specifications ;  so  that,  if  the 
pleader  fail  in  setting  out  his  specific  acts,  he  still  may  hold  under  the  general 
count,  and  the  count  setting  out  specifications  is  instead  of  a  bill  of  particulars. 
Now,  then,  I  say  we  need  not  discuss  the  question  of  pleading. 

The  only  question  is,  is  this  competent,  if  we  can  show  it  Avas  one  of  the 
ways  and  means  ?  The  difficulty  that  rests  in  the  minds  of  my  learned  friends 
on  the  other  side  is  that  they  cluster  everything  about  the  21st  of  February, 
1868.  They  seem  to  forget  that  the  act  of  the  21st  of  February,  1868,  was 
only  the  culmination  of  a  purpose  formed  long  before,  as  in  the  President's 
answer  he  sets  forth,  to  wit :  as  early  as  the  12th  of  August,  1867,  that  he  was 
determined  then  to  get  out  Mr.  Stanton,  at  any  rate — I  would  use  the  words 
"at  all  hazards;"  but  perhaps  they  might  be  subject  to  criticism  until  we  get 
through  our  case — certainly  by  the  use  of  force,  as  the  evidence  now  in  shows. 
He  formed  his  purpose. 

To  carry  it  out  there  are  various  things  to  do.  He  must  get  control  of  the 
War  Office;  but  what  good  does  that  do  if  he  cannot  get  somebody  who  shall 
be  his  servant,  his  slave,  dependent  on  his  breath,  to  answer  the  requisitions  of 
his  pseudo  officer  whom  he  may  appoint ;  and  therefore  he  began  when  ?  Stan- 
ton was  suspended,  and  as  early  as  the  12tli  of  December  he  had  got  to  put 
that  suspension  and  the  reasons  for  it  before  the  Senate,  and  he  knew  it  would 
not  live  there  one  moment  after  it  got  fairly  considered.  Now  he  begins. 
What  is  the  first  thing  he  does  ?  "  To  get  somebody  in  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment that  will  mind  me  precisely  as  Thomas  will,  if  I  can  get  him  in  the  War 
Department."  That  is  the  first  thing;  and  thereupon,  without  any  vacancy, 
he  must  make  an  appointment.  The  difficulty  that  we  find  is  that  we  are 
obliged  to  argue  our  case  step  by  step  upon  a  single  point  of  evidence.  It  is 
one  of  the  infelicities  always  of  putting  in  a  case  that  sharp,  keen,  ingenious 
counsel  can  insist  at  all  steps  on  impaling  you  upon  a  point  of  evidence;  and 
therefore  I  have  got  to  proceed  a  little  further. 

Now,  our  evidence,  if  you  allow  it  to  come  in,  is,  first,  that  he  made  this  appoint- 
ment ;  that  this  failing,  he  sent  it  to  the  Senate,  and  Cooper  was  rejected.  Still 
determined  to  have  Cooper  in,  he  appointed  him  ad  interim,  precisely  as  this 
ad  interim  Thomas  was  appointed,  without  law  and  against  right.  We  put  it 
as  a  part  of  the  whole  machinery  by  which  to  get  hold,  to  get,  if  he  could,  his 
hand  into   the  treasury  of  the  United  States,  although  Mr.  Chandler  has  just 


260  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

gtated  there  was  no  way  to  get  it  except  by  a  requisition  through  the  "War 
Department ;  and  at  the  same  moment,  to  show  that  this  was  part  of  the  same 
iHegal  means,  we  show  you  that  although  Mr.  McCulloch,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  must  have  known  that  Thomas  was  appointed,  yet  the  President  took 
pains — we  have  put  in  the  paper — to  serve  on  Mr.  McCulloch  an  attested  copy 
of  the  appointment  of  Thomas  ad  interim,  in  order  that  he  and  Cooper  might 
recognize  his  warrants. 

Did  I  not  answer  my  friends  that  this  was  a  sufficient  ground  ?  More  than 
that,  I  have  yet  to  learn  in  a  somewhat  extended  practice  of  the  law,  (not  extend- 
ing, however,  so  long  as  that  of  most  of  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,)  that 
it  was  ever  objected  anywhere,  when  1  was  tracing  a  man's  motives,  when  I  was 
tracing  this  course,  that  I  had  not  a  right  to  put  in  every  act  that  he  did,  raleat 
quantum.  Everything  that  comes  out  of  his  mouth,  every  act  that  he  does,  I 
have  a  right  to  put  in. 

Let  us  see  if  that  is  not  sustained  by  authorities.  The  question  arose  in  the 
trial  of  Jiimes  Watson  for  high  treason  in  the  year  1817  before  one  of  the  best 
lawyers  of  England,  Lord  Ellenborough,  assisted  by  Mr.  Justice  Holroyd,  IMr. 
Justice  Bayly,  and  Mr.  Justice  Abbott.  The  objection  there  was  precisely  the 
one  the  learned  counsel  raise  here.  It  was  alleged  that  certain  speeches  had 
been  made  which  were  treasonable  speeches.  That  was  all  that  was  said  about 
them ;  they  were  not  set  out  any  further.  I  got  this  book  (32  State  Trials)  for 
an  entirely  different  purpose ;  but  it  contains  an  authority  directly  in  point. 
Certain  speeches  were  alleged;  the  indictment  charged  that  certain  speeches 
were  made  without  setting  them  out  ;  and  it  was  claimed  that  they  could  not  be 
proved  as  overt  acts  ;  and  the  question  was  whether  certain  other  speeches  could 
be  put  in  as  tending  to  show  the  animus  with  which  the  first  set  of  speeches 
had  been  spoken.     Lord  Ellenborough  closed  the  discussion  by  saying  : 

Lord  Ellenborovgh.  If  there  liad  becu  no  particular  overt  act  under  which  this  evidence 
Avas  receivable,  it  is  a  universal  rule  of  evidence  that  what  a  i>arty  himself  says  may  be 
given  ia  evidence  against  him,  to  explain  any  part  of  his  conduct  to  which  it  bears  reference. 

Mr.  Welherdl,  (the  counsel  for  the  defendant.)  We  do  not  object  that  it  is  not  evidence, 
bait  that  it  is  not  proof  of  the  overt  act. 

Lord  Ellenborough.  There  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  M'hatever  proceeds  from  the  mouth  of 
man  may  be  given  in  evidence  against  him  ;  it  shows  the  intention  with  which  be  acts. — 
152  State  Trials,  page  91. 

"  Whatever  proceeds  from  his  mouth."  Jl  fortiori,  senators,  when  it  is 
under  his  hand  like  the  seal  of  a  commission,  if  his  declarations  can  be  given, 
may  not  his  acts  ?  I  would  not  have  troubled  the  presiding  officer,  I  would  not 
liave  troubled  senators  so  long  itpon  this  matter,  had  it  not  been  that  there  may 
be  other  acts  all  clustering  around  this  grand  conspiracy  which  we  propose,  if 
we  are  permitted,  to  put  in. 

The  CiiiKK  Justice.  The  manager  will  reduce  his  question  to  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  ]kiT.LRR.  The  simple  question  was,  who  was  Edmund  Cooper? 
I  suppose;  my  friends  do  not  mean  to  object  to  that  alone.  The  question  was, 
do  you  know  him  and  who  is  he? 

Mr.  Stamjkkv.  We  asked  what  you  intended  to  prove  in  reference  to 
Edmund  Cooper  ? 

Mr.  Manager  IMitlku.  I  have  stated  that  at  very  considerabh'  length.  I 
propose  to  ])rove  that  Mr.  Edmund  Cooper  took  possession  in  the  Treasury 
Department  bcjfore  the  30th  of  November,  and  that  he  had  this  commission, 
showing  that  the  I'rcsident  gav((  a  commission  illegally  in  violation  of  the  ten- 
ure-of-ofhce  act  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  attention.  The  tenure-of-office  act 
provides  that  "in  such  case  and  in  no  other,"  to  wit,  where  an  officer  has  been 
guilty  of  misconduct  or  crime,  or  for  any  reason  becomes  incapable  or  legally 
disqualifi(;d  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  ofHce,  the  President  may  suspend  him; 
and  then  the  sixth  section  provides  that — 

The  maliing,  signing,  scaling,  countersigning,  or  issuing  of  any  connnission  or  letter  of 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  261 

aiithority  for  or  in  respect  to  any  such  appoiatuient  or  employment,  shall  be  deemed,  and  are 
hereby  declared  to  be,  high  misdemeanors. 

Therefore  the  very  signing  and  issuing  of  this  commission — the  signing  it, 
if  he  did  not  isue  it ;  the  issuing  of  it,  if  he  did  not  sign  it — there  being  no 
vacancy  which  is  contemphited  by  the  act,  is  a  crime,  and  another  crime  in  and 
part  of  the  great  conspiracy.  Therefore  the  question  will  be  whether  we  shall 
be  allowed  to  go  into  the  condition  of  Mr.  Cooper.  I  cannot  put  the  whole  of 
my  offer  in  one  question,  because  I  cannot  prove  it  all  by  one  witness. 

The  CiiiEF  Justice.  It  will  be  necessary  to  reduce  the  question  to  writing, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  submitted  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  put  it  rather  in  the  form  of  an  offer  to  prove. 
I  will  write  it  as  an  offer  to  prove,  in  a  moment. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  It  is  not  a  question  so  much,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  as  to  who 
Edmund  Cooper  is,  but  what  Edmund  Cooper  has  got  to  do  with  this  case; 
what  the  illegal  appointment  of  Edmund  Cooper  to  be  Assistant  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  ad  interim,  or  otherwise,  has  to  do  with  this  case ;  or  what  the 
appointment  of  Edmund  Cooper  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  moneys  in  the 
Treasury  Department  has  to  do  with  this  case.     That  is  the  material  inquiry. 

Now,  1  understand  the  learned  manager  to  say  that  the  proof  he  intends  to 
make  in  regard  to  Mr.  Cooper  is,  in  the  first  place,  that  there  was  an  illegal 
appointment  of  Mr.  Cooper,  and  in  that  the  President  violated  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  violated  the  tenure- of-office  act.  Well,  Mr.  Chief 
Justice,  have  they  given  us  notice  to  come  here  to  defend  any  such  delinquency 
as  that,  if  it  be  a  delinquency?  Have  the  House  of  Representatives  impeached 
the  President  for  anything  done  in  the  removal  of  Mr.  Chandler,  if  he  was 
removed,  or  in  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Cooper,  if  he  was  appointed  in  his  place? 
They  selected  one  instance  of  what  they  claim  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  of  the  tenure-of-office  act  in  regard  to  a  temporary  appointment  made 
during  the  session  of  the  Senate;  and  that  was  the  case  of  General  Thomas, 
and  of  General  Thomas  alone.  As  to  that,  of  course,  we  have  no  objection  to 
their  going  into  evidence,  because  we  have  had  notice  of  it,  and  are  here  ready 
to  meet  it;  but  as  to  any  high  crime  and  misdemeanor  in  reference  to  the 
appointment  of  Mr.  Cooper,  certainly  the  gentlemen  have  no  authority  to  make 
such  a  charge,  because  they  come  here  with  a  delegated  authority  ;  they  come 
here  only  to  make  the  charges  found  good  by  the  House  of  Kepresentatives, 
and  not  the  charges  that  they  choose  to  manufacture  here.  The  managers  have 
no  right  to  amend  these  articles.  They  must  go  to  the  House  even  for  that. 
If  they  choose  to  go  to  the  House  and  get  a  new  article  founded  upon  an  illegal 
act  in  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Cooper,  let  them  go,  and  let  us  have  time  to 
answer  it  and  to  meet  it. 

So  much  for  the  admissibility  of  the  testimony  as  to  the  illegal  appointment 
of  Mr.  Cooper.  It  is  a  matter  not  charged.  That  is  enough.  It  is  a  matter 
they  are  not  authorized  to  charge;  they  have  no  such  delegated  authority  here. 

What  is  the  next  ground,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  upon  which  they  ask  to  prove 
anything  in  relation  to  Mr.  Cooper?  They  say  they  expect  to  prove  that  Mr. 
Cooper  Avas  put  into  that  place  of  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  by  the 
President  in  order  to  control  the  disbursement  of  the  moneys  in  that  defiartment. 
That  I  understand  to  be  the  next  ground.  Now,  let  us  see  what  they  have 
charged  about  that.  Here  they  have  got  an  article  charging  an  illegal  act  of 
the  President  in  reference  to  the  disbursement  of  the  public  money — article 
eight.  Let  us  see  what  Mr.  Cooper  has  to  do  with  that. 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high 
duties  of  his  office  and  of  his  oath  of  office,  with  intent  unlawfully  to  control  the  disburse 
ments  of  the  moneys  appropriated  for  the  military  service  and  for  the  Department  of  War, 
on  the  2 1st  day  of  February — 

Did  a  certain  thing.     What  was   it  ?      Appoint  Mr.  Cooper  ?      Give  him 


262  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

authority  to  act  in  any  office?  No.  He  appointed  Thomas,  and  that  appointment 
is  the  only  appointment  set  out  as  the  means  to  control  those  disbursements.  If 
it  was  neces.-^ary  to  frame  an  article  founded  upon  the  appointment  of  Thomas 
as  a  means  used  by  the  President  to  get  confrol  of  these  public  moneys,  was  it 
not  equally  necessary  to  have  an  article  founded  upon  the  same  line  of  conduct 
in  reference  to  Mr.  Cooper  ?     Unquestionably. 

Then,  in  the  eleventh  article,  what  is  there  that  authorizes  the  introduction 
of  this  testimony  1     That  he  made  certain  speeches.     What  then  ? 

Afterward,  to  wit,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1868,  at  the  city  of  Washington, 
in  the  District  of  Colnmbia,  did,  nulawfullj'  and  in  disregard  of  tlie  requirement  of  the  Con 
stitution  that  he  should  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  attcnijit  to  prevent  the 
execution  of  an  act  entitled   "An  act  regulating  the  tenui'e  of  certain  civil  offices." 

That  is  the  unlawful  thing  ;  and  how  1 

By  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive,  means 
by  which  he  should  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  fortiiwith  resuming  the  functions  of  the 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  notwitiistanding  the  refusal  of  the  Senate  to 
concur  in  the  suspension  theretofore  made  by  said  Andrew  Johnson  of  said  Edwin  M.  Stan- 
ton from  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  ;  and,  also,  by  further  unlaw- 
fully devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive,  means,  then  and  there, 
to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "  An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of 
the  army  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  '.iO,  1868,  and  for  other  purposes." 

That  is  the  act  which  contains  the  section  requiring  the  orders  for  military 
operations  to  go  through  General  Grant.  That  is  the  means  he  contrived  there 
to  get  Stanton  out.     So  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  this.     "What  further  ? 

And,  also,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  more 
efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States." 

Now,  what  relevancy  has  the  appointment  of  Cooper  with  the  government  of 
the  rebel  States,  or  with  the  execution  of  the  reconstruction  acts,  or,  in  fact, 
with  any  offence  charged  in  any  one  of  the  eleven  articles  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  we  consider  the  law  to  he  well  settled 
and  accepted  everywhere  in  this  country  and  England  to-day,  that  where  an 
intent  is  the  subject-matter  of  inquiry  in  a  criminal  prosecution,  other  and  inde- 
pendent acts  on  the  part  of  the  accused,  looking  to  the  same  result,  are  admissible 
in  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  that  fact.  And  we  go  farther  than 
that.  We  undertake  to  say,  upon  very  high  and  commanding  authority,  not  to  be 
challenged  here  or  elsewhere,  that  it  is  settled  that  such  other  and  independent 
acts,  showing  the  purpose  to  bring  about  the  same  general  result,  although  at 
the  time  of  the  inquiry  the  subject-matter  of  a  sepai-ate  indictment,  are  never- 
theless admissible.  I  doubt  not  that  it  will  occur  to  the  recollection  of  honor- 
able senators  that  among  other  cases  illustrative  of  the  rule  which  I  have  just 
cited  it  has  been  stated  in  the  books — the  cases  have  been  ruled  first  and  then 
incorporated  into  books  of  standard  authorities — that  where  a  party,  for  example, 
was  charged  with  shooting  with  intent  to  kill  a  person  named,  it  was  compe- 
tent, in  order  to  show  the  malice,  the  malicious  intent  of  the  act,  to  show  that  at 
another  time  and  place  he  laid  poison.  A  party  is  charged  with  passing  a  coun- 
terfeit note;  it  is  comj)etent,  in  order  to  prove  the  scienter,  to  show  that  he  was 
in  possession  of  other  counterfeit  notes  of  a  different  denomination;  and  the 
rule,  as  stated  in  the  books,  is,  that  what  is  competent  to  prove  the  sciente>\  as 
a  general  ])rincipl(^,  is  competent  to  prove  the  intent. 

Now,  what  is  the  .allegation  in  the  eleventh  article  ?  That  this  procedure 
was  taken  on  the  part  of  the  President  for  the  purpose  of  setting  aside  and 
defeating  the  operation  of  that  law.  That  law  stands  with  the  other  legislation 
of  this  coiuitry. 

i\!r.  Stanbkrv.  What  law  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bi.\onA!M.  The  tenure-of-office  act.  That  law  stands  with  tl)e 
other  legislation  of  this  country  ;  and  I  undertake  to  say,  without  stopping  to 
cite  the  statutes,  that  by  the  existing  law  of  the  United  States  the  appropria- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  263 

tions  made  for  the  support  of  the  Department  of  "War  and  for  the  snpport  of  the 
army  can  only  be  reached  in  the  treasury  of  the  nation  through  the  requisitions 
drawn  by  the  Secretary  of  War.  Here  is  an  independent  act  done  by  the 
accused,  as  is  well  said  by  my  associate,  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  this  result. 
How  ?  By  appointing  an  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who,  under  the 
lav,"-  and  regulations,  is  authorized  to  act  upon  the  warrants  that  may  be  drawn 
upon  the  treasury  through  that  department  or  any  other  department ;  by  appoint- 
ing a  person,  in  other  words,  to  discharge  the  very  duty  which  he  desires  him 
to  discharge  in  aid  of  his  design  ;  and  what  is  that?  That  the  money  appro- 
priated by  Congress,  and  not  to  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  except  in  pursu- 
ance of  law,  to  wit,  through  the  Secretary  of  War,  duly  constituted  such  by 
the  appointment  of  the  President  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
may,  nevertheless,  be  drawn  out  of  the  treasury  by  a  person  acting  as  an  oilScer, 
without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  through  the  requisitions  made  on 
the  treasury  by  his  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  appointed  in  the  presence  of 
the  Senate,  in  defiance  of  the  Senate,  and  in  violation  of  the  law. 

If  the  appointment  of  such  an  o£6cer  throws  no  light  on  this  subject,  of 
course  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter  ;  if  it  does,  it  has  a  great  deal  to 
do  with  it.  If  the  question  stops  with  the  inquiry  who  Edmund  Cooper  is,  of 
course  it  throws  no  light  upon  this  subject;  but  if  the  testimony  discloses  such 
relations  with  the  President  and  his  appointment  under  such  circumstances  as 
indicate  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  Cooper  to  co-operate  with  the  President  in 
this  general  design,  I  apprehend  it  will  throw  a  great  deal  of  light  upon  this 
subject.  And,  in  the  event  of  the  removal  of  the  head  of  the  department,  (and 
if  this  rule  is  to  be  established  that  might  happen  any  hour,  without  regard  to  ' 
the  opinions  of  the  Senate  to  the  contrary  or  to  the  requirements  of  the  law,) 
this  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  would  have  the  control  of  the  whole 
question.  I  am  free  to  say,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned  in  this  matter,  if  nothing 
further  be  shown  than  the  mere  inquiry  of  the  appointment  of  Cooper,  it  may 
not  throw  any  light  upon  the  subject ;  but  I  do  not  so  understand  the  matter. 
There  is  more  than  that  in  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  In  order  that  there  may  be  a  distinct  proposition 
before  the  Senate,  we  offer  to  prove  that,  there  being  no  vacancy  in  the  office 
of  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  President  unlawfully  appointed  his 
friend  and  theretofore  private  secretary,  Edmund  Cooper,  to  that  position,  as 
one  of  the  means  by  which  he  intended  to  defeat  the  tenure  of  civil  office  act 
and  other  laws  of  Congress. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Will  you  be  so  good  as  to  insert  the  date  in  your  offer? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlbr.  I  will,  sir.  [After  a  pause.]  I  have  inserted  a 
date  satisfactory  to  myself,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  to  the  counsel  for  the  President. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  have  no  doubt  it  is  correct. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  offer  to  prove  that  after  the  President  had 
determined  on  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  in  spite  of  the 
action  of  the  Senate,  there  being  no  vacancy  in  the  office  of  Assistant  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  the  President  unlawfully  appointed  his  friend  and  theretofore 
private  secretary,  Edmund  Cooper,  to  that  position,  as  one  of  the  means  by 
which  he  intended  to  defeat  the  tenure  of  civil  office  act  and  other  laws  of 
Congi-ess. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  do  not  understand  that  to  be  a  date.  I  ask  you  to  be  good 
enough  to  put  it  on  the  20th  of  November. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  want  to  have  it  appear  in  relation  to  that, 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Put  in  what  you  have  also,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  the  learned  counsel  will  allow  me,  I  will  make  my 
offer  as  I  like. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Undoubtedly.  I  only  asked  you  to  name  the  date.  You  can 
do  as  you  please  about  it. 


264  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  proposition. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that,  after  the  President  had  determined  on  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton, 
Secretary  of  War,  in  spite  of  the  action  of  the  Senate,  there  being  no  vacancy  in  the  office 
of  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  President  unlawfully  appointed  his  friend  and 
theretofore  private  secretary,  Edmund  Cooper,  to  that  position,  as  one  of  the  means  by 
wliich  he  intended  to  defeat  the  tenure  of  civil  office  act  and  other  laws  of  Congress. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  action  of  the  Seuate,  I  think,  was  in  December,  1867. 

Mr.  Staxbery.  February  13. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  January  13. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Yes;  that  is  it. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  January  13,  1S68;  so  that  what  you  now  offer  was  after  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Oh,  no.  The  President  formed  the  purpose,  as  he 
tells  us  in  the  letter  to  General  Grant,  and  as  he  tells  us  in  his  answer,  on  the 
12th  of  August,  1867,  when  he  suspended  Mr.  Stanton,  to  suspend  him  indefi- 
nitely;  to  try  to  sec  if  the  Senate  would  not  agree  to  that ;  if  they  would  not, 
then  to  keep  him  suspended  indefinitely,  and  remove  him  as  soon  as  ever  he 
could  get  anybody  to  aid  him.  That  is  our  proposition  of  what  the  evidence 
and  the  claims  of  the  President  show;  he  meant  to  do  that  in  spite  of  what 
happened ;  and  we  say  after  that  intent  was  formed  he  made  the  appointment 
of  Cooper. 

Mr.  Evarts.  After  the  12th  of  August,  1867,  then.  We  want  to  get  at  the 
date  ;  that  is  all. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  desire  to  be  heard 
•further  1 

Mr.  Evarts.  No,  sir;  but  we  object  to  it.  It  is  not  within  any  article  of 
impeachment. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the 
Senate.  The  question  is,  whether  the  evidence  proposed  by  the  honorable 
managers  shall  be  admitted  ? 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  should  like  to  have  the  managers  answer  a  question  before 
the  vote  is  taken. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Ohio. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Will  the  managers  read  the  particular  clauses  of  the  eighth  and  eleventh  articles  to  prove 
which  this  testimony  is  offered? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  As  I  understand  it,  it  is  to  prove  the  intent  alleged  in 
the  eighth  article  in  these  words : 

With  intent  unlawfully  to  control  the  disbursements  of  the  moneys  appropriated  for  tho 
military  service  and  for  the  Department  of  War. 

He  did  a  certain  act  with  that  intent.  Now,  to  prove  that  intent,  we  show  he 
did  a  certain  other  act  which  would  enable  him  to  control  the  moneys. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  eighth  article  seems  to  say  nothing  about  money. 

Mr.  Manager  IUitler.  The  eighth  article  reads  : 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high  duties 
of  liis  office,  and  of  his  oath  of  office,  with  intent  unlawfully  to  control  tho  disbiirsemeuts 
of  moneys  ajjpropriated. 

The  Chiff  Justice.  What  act  is  charged  1 

Mr.  iManager  Butler.  The  act  charged  is,  that,  with  that  intent,  lie 
appointed  Thomas.  Now,  to  ])rov(^  tlie  intent  with  wliich  he  appointed  Thomas, 
we  i)rove  that  he  also  |)repared  a  man  who,  in  the  office  of  Assistant  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  would  answer  'J'hoinas's  r('C|uisitioiis. 

Now,  as  to  the  other  point,  I  will  read,  in  answer  to  the  question  of  the  sen- 
ator, from  the  eleventh  article  : 

By  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,   and  attemi)tiug  to  devise  and  contrive,  moans 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  265 

by  which  he  should  prevent  Edwiu  M.  Stanton  from  forthwith  rcsuniinjr  the  functions  of  the 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  notwithstanding  tlie  refusal  o|  the  Sfmate  to 
concur  in  the  suspension  theretofore  made  by  said  Andrew  Johnson  of  said  Edwin  M.  Stan- 
ton from  saidofKce  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War;  and  also,  by  further  unlawfully 
devising-  and  contriving',  and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive,  meaus,  therf  and  there,  to 
prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  sufjport  of  the 
army  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1868,  and  for  other  purposes,"  approved  March  2, 
aud,"^  also,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient 
government  of  the  rebel  States,"  passed  March  2,  1867. 

He  had  done  what  he  has  been  charged  to  have  done.  And  now,  in  that 
connection,  we  cUxim  that  this  was  a  part  of  the  machinery  to  carry  out  this 
thing ;  because,  suppose,  looking  forward  to  have  happened  exactly  what  did 
happen,  to  wit,  that  Mr.  Stanton  would  not  give  up  the  War  Department,  then 
the  question  was,  would  Mr.  McCulloch  answer  the  requisitions  of  Thomas  or 
of  anybody  else  he  should  put  in,  if  Stanton  should  hold  on  ?  It  is  clear  that 
the  President  knew  he  would  not,  because,  although  he  served  a  notice  upon 
McCulloch  to  do  it,  McCulloch  will  not  to-day,  and  he  has  not  been  able  to  get 
one  through  Thomas.  Now,  then,  he  gets  Thomas  in  ;  he  must  put  in  some- 
body in  the  Treasury  Department  who  will  obey  Thomas.  Thereupon  he  puts 
Cooper  in ;  and  with  a  single  stroke  of  his  pen  he  claims  to  have  the  right 
to  remove  McCulloch ;  and  he  also  claims,  and  has  put  it  in  his  answer,  that 
McCulloch,  as  one  of  his  cabinet,  has  agreed  to  go  at  a  stroke  of  his  pen  ;  so  that 
he  has  got  the  whole  army  and  treasury  of  the  United  States  within  his  con- 
trol. It  was  with  intent  to  do  that  that  he  made  the  appointment  of  Cooper ;  and 
to  show  that  it  was  with  that  intent,  we  show,  so  anxious  was  he  to  do  it,  that 
he  did  not  make  the  appointment  lawfully  ;  that  he  first  made  it  when  the  Senate 
was  not  in  session,  by  issuing  a  full  commission  ;  then  he  sent  it  to  the  Senate, 
and  the  Senate  rejected  Cooper;  but  still,  so  bent  was  he  on  having  Cooper  not 
private  secretary,  but  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  where  he  could  con- 
trol the  moneys  of  the  United  States,  that  he  first  appointed  him  ad  interim, 
showing  that  he  got  him  under  the  same  designation  as  Thomas  ;  and  the  desig- 
nation shows  something. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Are  senators  ready  for  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  request  the  managers  to  answer  a  question  which  I  have  sent 
to  the  Chair. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  propounded  by 
the  senator  from  Maryland. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

The  managers  are  requested  to  say  whether  they  propose  to  show  that  Cooper  was  appointed 
by  the  President  in  November,  1867,  as  a  means  to  obtain  the  unlawful  possession  of  the 
public  money,  other  than  by  the  fact  of  the  appointment  itself? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  certainly  do — is  that  an  answer? — more  than  by 
the  appointment.  That  we  may  not  be  misunderstood  hereafter,  we  propose  to 
show  that  he  appointed  him,  and  thereupon  Mr.  Cooper  went  into  the  exercise 
of  the  duties  of  the  office  before  his  appointment  could  by  any  possibility  be 
legal ;  and  that  he  has  been,  we  hope  and  believe  we  shall  show  that  he  has 
been,  controlling  other  public  moneys  since. 

The  Chief  Justice  having  put  the  question  on  the  admissibility  of  the  evidence, 
declared  that  the  negative  appeared  to  prevail, 

Mr.  Howard  and  Mr.  Sumner  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays ;  and  they  were 
ordered. 

Mr.  He\derso\.  Before  the  vote  is  taken,  I  desire  that  some  testimony  shall 
be  read.     I  send  my  request  to  the  Chair. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Henderson's  request,  as  follows  : 

It  is  requested  that  the  testimony  of  the  witness.  Chandler,  in  regard  to  the  mode  and  man- 
ner of  obtaining  money  ou  a  requisition  of  the  Secretary  of  War  be  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  can  only  be  read  from  the  notes  of  the  short-hand 
reporter;  but  the  witness  can  restate  it. 


266  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Hrxdhrsox.  I  will  inquire  if  the  witness  will  be  permitted  to  restate  it? 

The  Chikf  Justice.  Certainly. 

IMr.  Hknderson.  ]My  object  is  to  know  whether  money  can  be  obtained  upon 
the  requisition  of  the  Assistant  Secretary,  and  not  of  the  Secretary  himself;  just 
to  that  point. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Let  him  answer  to  that  very  point. 

Mr.  Jfanager  BuTLER.  Let  him  answer. 

The  Chief  Ju.stice,  (to  the  witness.)  Answer  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Missouri.     Will  the  senator  state  the  question  to  the  witness  ? 

Mr.  Henderson.  I  prefer  that  the  managers  should  do  so. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Will  you  state  now  whether  the 
Assistant  Secretary  can  sign  warrants  ? 

Mr.  Curtis  and  Mr.  Evauts.  That  is  not  the  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  For  the  payment  of  money  ^ 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  question  is,  whether  on  requisitions  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment  

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Whether,  upon  the  requisition  of  any  department  of 
the  government,  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  can  sign  warrants  on 
the  treasury  for  the  payment  of  money  ? 

The  Witness.  Until  the  passage  of  a  late  statute,  whenever  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  was  present  and  acting,  money  could  not  be  drawn  from  the 
treasury  upon  the  signature  of  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  An  act 
has  been  passed  within  a  year  allowing  the  Assistant  Secretary  to  sign  covering- 
in  warrants  and  warrants  for  the  payment  of  money  upon  accounts  stated  ;  but 
the  practice  still  continues  of  signing  all  customary  warrants  by  the  signature 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  warrants  are  prepared  and  the  initials 
of  the  Assistant  Secretary  in  charge  of  the  warrants  placed  upon  them,  and  then 
they  are  signed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  when  he  is  present. 

Mr.  Fessenden.  I  ask  that  that  law  may  be  read.  I  should  like  to  know 
what  it  is  exactly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Do  you  remember  the  date  of  it? 

The  Witness.  It  is  within  a  year.  I  can  find  it  if  you  give  me  the  statutes 
for  the  last  year. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  put  a  question  to  the  witness  : 
whether  before  the  passage  of  the  act  to  which  he  refers  any  warrant  could  be 
drawn  by  the  Assistant  Secretary,  unless  he  was  Acting  Secretary  in  the 
absence  of  the  -Secretary  ? 

A.  There  could  not.  Prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act  no  money  could  be 
drawn  from  the  treasury  upon  the  signature  of  an  Assistant  Secretary,  unless 
when  Acting  Secretary  under  an  appointment  for  tliat  purpose. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  When  the  Assistant  Secretary  acts  for  the  Secretary,  does  he  sign  all 
warrants  for  the  payment  of  money  ? 

A.  When  Acting  Secretary,  of  course  he  signs  all  warrants  for  the  payment 
of  money. 

Mr.  C  A. ME  RON.  I  desire  to  ask  a  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  will  reduce  his  question  to  writing  and 
send  it  to  the  Chair. 

Mr.  Cameron.  1  did  not  understand  that.  I  desire  to  askaqucstion  merely 
as  to  the  practice.     I  can  do  it  in  less  time  than  by  writing  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  requires  it  to  be  reduced  to  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  read  the  law  to  which  reference  has  been  made  : 

AN  ACT  supijlemcntal  to  an  act  to  establish  tho  Treasiuy  Department,  approved  Septem- 
ber 2,  17rt!). 
Be  it  cnaclcA  Inj  tlic'' Senate  and  House  of  Reprcscntalims  of  the  United  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  have  power,  by  au  appoint 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  267 

ment  under  liis  hand  and  ofScial  seal,  to  delef^ate  to  one  of  the  Assistant  Secretaries  of  the 
treasury  authority  to  sign  in  his  stead  all  warrants  for  the  payment  of  money  into  the  puhlic. 
Treasury  and  all  warrants  for  the  disbursement  from  the  puijlic  treasury  of  money  certified 
by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  treasury  to  be  due  upon  accounts  duly  audited  and 
settled  by  them;  and  such  warrants  so  signed  shall  be  in  all  cases  of  the  same  validity  as  if 
they  had  been  signed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  himself." 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG  and  others.  What  is  the  date  of  that  1 

Mr.  :^^anager  Butler.  The  date  is  March  2,  18C7,  the  same  date  as  the 
tenure-of-ofSce  act. 

A  single  other  question,  which,  perhaps,  is  rather  a  conclusion  of  law  than  of 
fact.  (To  the  witness.)  In  case  of  the  removal  or  absence  of  Mr.  McCulloch 
or  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as  I  understand,  the  Assistant  Secretary  per- 
forms all  the  acts  of  the  Secretary  1 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  a  question  of  law. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  said  I  doubted  as  to  that.  I  was  only  asking  for 
the  practice.     (To  the  witness.)     Is  that  the  pi-actice  ? 

A.  I  am  not  certain  that  it  is,  without  an  appointment  as  Acting  Secretary  for 
the  Assistant  Secretary,  signed  by  the  President. 

Mr.  CamerOxV.  I  desired  to  put  a  question,  and  I  think  it  is  contrary  to  the 
practice  to  require  me  to  put  it  in  writing ;  but  I  have  reduced  it  to  writing,  and 
I  ask  that  it  be  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Pennsylvania. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Can  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  the  law,  draw  warrants  for  the  pay- 
ment of  moneys  by  the  Treasurer  without  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ? 

The  Witness.  Since  the  passage  of  the  act,  I  understand,  the  Assistant  Sec- 
retary can  sign  a  warrant  for  the  payment  of  money  in  the  cases  specified. 

By  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  Is  not  that  by  deputation  ? 

A.  Which  is  presumed  rather  to  be  with  the  assent  and  approval  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  Cameron.  I  will  ask  another  question  without  reducing  it  to  writing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection,  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania 
will  be  allowed  to  put  a  question  without  reducing  it  to  writing. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  President,  I  object. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Oregon  objects. 

Mr.  Cameron.  The  question  I  intended  to  ask  was,  has  it  been  the  prac- 
tice  

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  (To  the  witness.)  Has  it  been  the  practice  for  him  to 
sign  warrants  1 

A.  Since  the  passage  of  the  act  in  question  it  has. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  the  question  is  :  Shall  the  evidence  proposed 
by  the  managers  be  received  1 

Mr.  Fessenden.  I  should  like  to  put  a  question  as  soon  as  I  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  write  it.  [After  writing.]  There  are  two  questions  which  I  wish  to 
put. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  questions  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Maine. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Q.  Has  it  been  the  practice  since  the  passage  of  the  law  for  an  Assistant  Secretary  to  sign 
warrants  unless  specially  appointed  and  authorized  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ? 

Q.  Has  any  Assistant  Secretary  been  authorized  to  sign  any  warrants  except  such  as  are 
specified  in  the  act  ? 

The  Witness.  It  has  not  been  the  practice  for  an  Assistant  Secretary,  since 


268  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

tLe  passage  of  the  act,  to  sign  warrants  except  upon  an  appointment  bj  the 
Secretary  for  that  purpose,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  act.  Imme- 
diately upon  the  passage  of  the  act,  tlie  Secretary  authorized  one  of  his  Assist- 
ant Secretaries  to  sign  warrants  of  the  character  described  in  the  act,  and  they 
have  been  customarily  signed  by  that  Assistant  Secretary  in  all  cases  since  that 
time. 

Mr.  Fessenuen.  Now  let  the  second  question  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  second  question  as  follows : 

Q.  Has  any  Assistaut  Secretary  been  authorized  to  sign  any  warrants  except  such  as  are 
specified  by  the  act  ? 

The  Witness.  No  Assistant  Secretary  has  been  authorized  to  sign  warrants 
except  such  as  are  specified  in  this  act,  unless  when  Acting  Secretary. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  evidence 
oftei'ed  on  the  part  of  the  managers  should  be  admitted,  will,  as  your  names  are 
called,  answer  yea;  those  who  are  of  the  contrary  opinion  will  say  nay.  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  result  was  announced — yeas  23,  nays  26. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  I  desire  to  know  how  my  name  is  recorded? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  is  recorded  among  the  yeas. 

Mr.  Conn  ess.  That  is  a  mistake.  I  voted  in  the  negative,  and  I  wish 
myself  recorded  correctly. 

The  change  being  made,  the  result  was  announced — yeas  22,  naya  27,  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Coukling,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Nye,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Ross, 
Sprague,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  and  Wilson — '22. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bayard,  Buekalew,  Couness,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Ferry, 
Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelinglmysen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery, 
Morrill  of  Maine,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Sherman, 
Stewart,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  and  Williams — 27. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Harlan,  Morton,  Saulsbury,  Wade,  and  Yates — 5. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  yeas  are  22,  the  nays  are  27,  So  the  evidence  is 
not  received. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  I  have  nothing  further  to  ask  this  witness  at 
present.  We  may  wish  to  call  him  again,  however,  at  another  part  of  the  case, 
when  we  get  along  further,  so  that  we  can  oiler  this  in  another  view. 

Mr.  EvARTS.   We  shall  reserve  our  questions  till  then. 

Charles  A.  Tinker  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  What  is  your  full  name  ? 

Answer.  Charles  A.  Tinker. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  I  am  a  telegraph  operator. 

Q.  Are  you  in  charge  of  any  office  ? 

A.  I  am  in  charge  of  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  office  in  this  city. 

Q.  AVere  you  at  any  time  in  charge  of  the  military  telegraph  office  of  the 
War  Department  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  From  what  time  to  what  time? 

A.  I  can  hardly  U'W  from  what  time.  I  was  in  charge  of  the  military  tele- 
graph office  of  the  War  Department  up  to  August,  1SG7.  I  think  I  was  per- 
sonally in  cliarge  something  like  a  year.  1  was  connected  with  the  office  for 
something  like  five  years. 

Q.  While  in  charge  of  that  office,  state  whether  a  despatch  from  Lewis  E. 
Parsons,  of  Montgomery,  Alabama,  came  to  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  if  so,  at  what  date  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  269 

A.  I  think  while  in  that  oflSce  I  saw  a  great  many  such  despatches. 

Q.  What  paper  have  you  in  your  hand  ? 

A.  I  have  what  professes  to  be  a  copy  of  a  telegram  from  Lewis  E.  Parsons, 
Montgomery,  Alabama,  addressed  to  "  His  Excellency  Andrew  Johnson, 
President." 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  that  telegram  came  through  the  office  ? 

A.  I  recognize  this  as  being  the  character  of  despatch  which  passed  through, 
or  was  received,  at  the  military  telegraph  office. 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  we  must  object  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Were  there  duplicate  originals  of 
telegrams  received  kept  at  the  military  telegraph  office  ? 

A.  What  is  called  a  press  copy  was  taken  of  each  despatch  before  being 
delivered  from  the  office. 

Q.  Was  such  a  piess  copy  taken  of  each  despatch  before  it  was  sent  ? 

A.  Not  before  being  sent. 

Q.  The  original  was  kept,  then  ? 

A.  The  original  was  kept  on  file  in  the  office. 

Q.  State  whether,  at  my  request,  you  examined  those  press  coipies  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  find  such  a  despatch  as  I  have  described  among  those  press 
copies  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  copy  it  1 

A.  I  made  a  copy. 

Q.  Have  you  got  that  in  your  hand  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  have  not. 

Q.  Can  you  give  an  explanation  as  to  that  copy  you  now  have  in  your  hand? 

A.  I  made  a  copy  of  the  despatch,  and  answered  the  summons  of  the  man- 
agers, and  I  placed  the  copy  in  your  hands,  and  I  heard  you  order  your  clerk 
to  make  a  copy  of  that ;  and  after  a  short  time  the  clerk  returned  with  that 
copy,  and  read  the  copy  which  he  had  made,  and  you  returned  to  me  the  copy 
I  had  made. 

Q.  Have  you  that  copy  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Very  well;  produce  the  original  despatch  and  the  copy  both. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  ask  what  is  meant  by  the  "original  despatch."  I  under- 
stood this  wag  a  despatch  received  here. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  The  original  press  copy  is  meant. 

The  Witness.  I  mean  to  say  that  I  have  the  original  press  copy.  [Pro- 
ducing a  bound  letter-book,  the  pages  of  which  were  press  copies  of  despatches.] 

Q.  Have  you  that  original  press  copy  ? 

A,  I  have  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Read  from  it,  please. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Let  us  see  what  it  is, 

[The  book  was  handed  to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.] 

Mr.  Staxbery.  I  wish  to  ask  a  preliminary  question.  (To  the  witness.) 
Did  you  make  this  press  copy  yourself? 

A.  The  press  copy  is  made  by  the  clerk.  The  telegram  is  written  by  one 
of  the  operators. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  By  you  1 

The  Witness.  Not  by  me  personally, 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  object. 

Mr.  Evarts.  This  book  does  not  prove  itself. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  understand  the  objection,  if  there  is  any. 

Mr.  Evarts,  We  do  not  understand  that  a  telegraph  company's  books  prove 


270  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

themselves  like  a  record.     You  bring  no  living  witness  that  verifies  anything 
here. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  pass  from  this  for  a  moment.  (To  the  witness.) 
Do  you  remember,  as  an  act  of  memory,  whether  such  a  telegram  as  that  passed 
through  the  office  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  this  despatch  having  passed  through  the  office ;  I 
cannot  take  my  oath  that  I  remember  the  particular  despatch. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  you  have  an  original  despatch  of  the  same  date 
signed  "Andrew  Johnson?" 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Produce  it. 

A.  I  have  a  bonk  in  which  the  despatch  is  filed.  (Producing  a  bound  letter- 
book  on  the  pages  of  which  were  pasted  despatches.) 

Q.  Are  you  so  familiar  with  the  signature  of  Andrew  Johnson  as  to  know 
whether  that  is  his  name  signed  to  it  ] 

A.  I  believe  that  to  be  his  signature ;  I  am  very  familiar  with  it. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  in  your  own  mind  as  to  that  1 

A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  Is  this  book  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  and  you  have  just  produced,  the 
record  book  of  the  United  States  military  telegraph  of  the  executive  office 
wherein  original  despatches  are  put  on  record? 

A.  It  is  the  book  in  which  the  original  despatches  were  filed. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  this  despatch  passed  through  the  office  to  Lewis 
E.  Parsons  ? 

A.  I  do  know  from  the  marks  it  contains. 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  is  an  inference. 

The  Witness.     I  can  answer  that.     I  saw  the  despatch  in  the  office. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  And  it  bears  the  marks  of  having  been  sent? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Now,  let  us  see  the  despatch.  [The  book  was  handed  to 
the  counsel  for  the  respondent  and  examined  by  them.]  This  is  very  good 
reading ;  but  will  you  tell  us  what  is  the  object  of  this  testimony  ?  We  like 
the  document ;  but  what  is  the  object  of  it  here  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Do  you  object  to  this  document,  whatever  the  object  is? 

Mr.  Stanrery.  We  object  until  we  know  the  purpose. 

Mr.  ]\Ianager  Butler.  The  question  that  I  put  now  is  simply  whether  you 
object  to  the  vehicle  of  proof? 

Mr.  EVARTS.  No. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  it  is  proper  to  read  it  at  all,  the  question  is  whether 
it  is  proved. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  proceeded  from  the  President,  and  therefore  it  is  proved. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  is  the  date  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  January  17,  1867;  the  same  date  with  Parsoaa's 
despatch. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Now,  the  object? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Not  yet,  sir.  (To  the  witness.)  On  the  same  day 
that  this  is  dated  do  you  find  in  the  records  of  the  department  a  press  copy  of 
a  despatch  from  Ijewis  E.  Parsons  to  which  this  is  in  answer  ? 

A.  I  find  in  the  press  copy  book  a  copy  of  a  despatch  which  that  was  in 
answer  to. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  How  does  tliat  appear? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  appears  because  the  witness  has  sworn  to  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.   If  it  is  an  answer,  it  speaks  for  itself. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Again  I  must  reply,  if  the  question  is  put  to  me  how 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  271 

it  appears,  he  has  sworn  that  it  is  an  answer.  (To  the  witness.)  Now,  what 
was  this  telegraph  office?  The  heading  of  the  despatch  is  "  United  States 
solitary  Telegraph."  Was  this  telegaaph  under  the  control  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment l 

A.  At  that  time  it  was  not  under  the  control  of  the  War  Department. 

Q.  Where  were  the  books  kept  ? 

The  Witness.  Do  I  understand  you  to  mean  the  lines  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  mean  the  lines.  I  mean  the  office ;  was  it  in 
the  War  Department  building  1 

A.  It  w^as. 

Q.  And  were  the  officers  employes  of  the  War  Department  1 

A.  They  were. 

Q.  Were  the  records  of  its  doings  at  that  office  kept  in  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  They  were. 

Q.  And  are  these  books  and  these  papers  produced  from  the  War  Depart 
ment  1 

A.  No,  sir;  they  are  not. 

Q.  Where  do  they  come  from  now  1 

A.  They  come  from  the  War  Department  through  the  telegraph  office;  it  has 
the  original  despatches  of  the  War  Department. 

Q.  They  came  to  the  telegraph  office  from  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  came  originally  as  records  from  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  From  the  War  Department  to  the  telegraph  office,  and  I  bring  them  here. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  submit  now  to  the  Senate  that  I  propose  to  use  in 
evidence,  if  it  is  otherwise  competent,  the  despatch  of  Lewis  E.  Parsons  to 
which  Andrew  Johnson  made  reply.  Having  proved  what  I  have  proved,  is 
there  any  objection — I  mean  now  as  to  the  vehicle  of  evidence  simj)ly,  not  as  to 
the  competency  of  the  contents  1 

Mr.  EvARTS.  On  that  point   in   this  present   case,  although  we  regard  the 
proof  of  Mr.  Parsons's  despatch  as  incompetent  and  insufficient,  we  shall  waive 
any  objection  of  that  kind,  and  the  question  may  now  stand  upon  the  compe 
tency  of  the  proof. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  On  the  question  of  relevancy,  I  suppose  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Yes,  and  competency ;  its  admissibility  in  any  way. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Admissibility  of  the  proof  of  the  contents  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Yes.  We  have  had  no  notice  to  produce  the  original,  but  we 
care  nothing  about  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  To  that  I  answer  we  have  the  original  here. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  No  ;  but  the  original  of  Mr.  Parsons's  despatch  delivered  to  the 
President.  We  have  had  no  notice  to  produce  that;  we  know  nothing  about 
it;  but  we  waive  that.  Now,  we  inquire  in  what  view  and  under  what  article 
these  despatches  dated  prior  to  the  civil-tenure  act  are  introduced  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  In  order  that  the  Senate  acting  both  as  court  and  jury 
may  understand  whether  these  papers  are  admissible  in  evidence,  it  becomes 
necessary,  with  the  leave  of  the  President  and  the  Senate,  to  read  them  de  bene 
esse,  in  order  that  we  may  show  how  they  become  competent. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  do  not  object  to  your  reading  them  de  bene  esse. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  despatch  of  Mr.  Parsons  is  : 

Montgomery,  Alaijama,  Janimry  17,  18G7. 
Legislature  in  session.     Efforts  makin<^  to  reconsider  vote  on  constitutional  umendnient. 
Eeport  from  Washington  says  it  is   probable  an  enabling  act  will  pass.     We  do  not  know 
what  to  believe.     I  find  nothing  here. 

LEWIS  E.  PARSONS, 

Exchange  Hotel 
His  Excellency  Andrew  Johnson,  President 


272  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  response  is : 

United  States  Military  Telegraph,  Executive  Office, 

H ashingtiin,  D.  C,  January  17,  1SG7. 

What  possible  pood  can  be  obtained  by  reconsiderincij  the  constitutional  amendment  ?  I 
know  of  none  in  the  present  posture  of  atfairs  ;  and  I  do  not  believe  the  people  of  the  whole 
country  will  sustain  any  set  of  individuals  in  attempts  to  change  tlie  whole  character  of  our 
government  by  enabling  acts  or  otherwise.  I  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  will  eventu- 
ally uphold  all  who  have  patriotism  and  courage  to  stand  by  the  Constitution  and  who  place 
their  coutidence  in  the  people.  There  should  be  no  faltering  on  the  part  of  those  who  are 
honest  in  their  determination  to  sustain  the  several  coordinate  departments  of  the  government 
in  accordance  with  its  original  design. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Hon.  Lew  IS  E.  Parsons,  Montgomery,  Alabama. 

I  have  no  further  call,  after  having  read  these  despatches,  so  that  they  may  be 
seen  of  the  Senate,  to  argue  the  question  whether  this  is  competent  evidence 
upon  articles  charging  Andrew  Johnson  with  attempting  to  overthrow  the  acts 
of  Congress,  to  oppose  their  validity,  and  to  bring  its  legislation  into  contempt. 
It  is  either  under  the  tenth  or  the  eleventh  article  quite  competent. 

Jlr.  EvARTS.  The  .tenth  is  confined  to  the  President's  speeches.  It  alludes 
to  nothing  else. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Speeches,  not  telegrams. 

Mr.  Manager  Bltler.  I  am  reminded  by  the  learned  counsel  that  that  article 
refers  to  speeches  and  not  telegrams.  I  know  it ;  but  with  what  intent  were 
those  speeches  made?  For  what  purpose  were  they  made  1  They  were  made 
for  the  purpose  of  arraying  the  country  against  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  and  its  lawful  acts,  and  to  bring  it  into  ridicule  and  contempt.  Now,  I 
am  upon  the  point  where  the  attempt  is  made  to  array  the  people  against  the 
lawful  acts  of  Congress  and  to  "  destroy  the  regard  and  respect  of  all  the  good 
people  of  the  United  States  for  the  Congress  and  legislative  power  thereof,"  and 
"  to  excite  the  odium  and  resentment  of  all  the  good  people  of  the  United  States 
against  Congress  and  the  laws  by  it  duly  and  constitutionally  enacted." 

We  must  go  back  a  moment,  if  the  Senate  please,  and  I  shall  take  but  a 
moment,  because  I  think  this  is  too  clear  for  argument.  The  President  had 
gone  forward  in  August  and  September,  1866,  declaring  everywhere  that  Con- 
gress had  no  power  to  do  what  it  was  proposing  to  do.  Congress  had  proposed 
the  constitutional  amendment  to  the  people  of  the  States,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  that  constitutional  amendment  from  being  accepted,  every  possible 
contumely  was  thrown  upon  Congress  and  every  possible  step  taken  to  prevent 
its  acceptance,  and  this  is  one  of  the  steps. 

I  will  not  argue  furtluir  under  that  proposition.  Then  the  eleventh  article 
charges  that  "  intending  to  deny  the  power  of  the  thirty-ninth  Congress  to 
propose  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,"  he  did  declare 
so  and  so.  We  find  with  that  intent  that  wlnnr  Congress  had  passed  an  act  for 
the  pacification  of  the  southern  States  and  for  the  settlement  of  the  difficulty,  in 
the  shape  of  a  proposed  amendment  to  tlie  Constitution,  and  when  that  was  being 
considered  by  the  southern  States,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  from  his 
high  position,  was  absolutely  telegraphing  to  the  legislature,  in  answer  to  a 
question  of  those  States  when  tliey  were  asking  for  advice,  urging  them  not  to 
accept  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  I  do  not  care  to  argue  this  any 
further. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  If  we  understand  the  honorable  managers  aright,  this  evidence 
is  supposed  to  be  relevant  and  coinj)etent  only  in  reference  to  tlie  crimes  charged 
in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  articles.  Is  that  so  ?  Was  that  your  proposition,  Mr. 
Butler  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  My  proposition  is  that  it  is  relevant  under  those.  I 
have  made  no  proposition  as  to  th(!  rest 

Mr.  EvARTS.  You  did  not  uame  any  others. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  273 

]\[r.  Manager  Butler.  I  did  not  tliiiik  it  necessary. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Very  well ;  I  shall  not  think  it  necessary  to  fonsider  any  others. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well;  we  are  agreed  on  that. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Now,  if  the  Chief  Justice  and  senators  will  give  their  attention 
to  the  tenth  article,  it  will  be  found  that  the  entire  charge  there  is  that  the  Presi- 
dent— 

Designinfj  and  intending  to  set  aside  the  rightful  authority  and  powers  of  Congress,  did 
attempt  to  bring  into  disgrace,  ridicule,  hatred,  contempt,  and  reproach,  tlie  Congress  of  the 
United  States  and  the  several  branches  thereof,  to  impair  and  destroy  the  regard  and  respect  of 
all  the  good  people  of  the  United  States  for  the  Congress  and  legislative  power  thereof,  (which 
aH  officers  of  the  government  ought  inviolably  to  preserve  and  maintain,)  and  to  excite  the 
odium  and  resentment  of  all  the  good  people  of  the  United  States  against  Congress  and  the 
laws  by  it  duly  and  constitutionally  enacted. 

That  is  the  entire  purview  of  the  intent.  Now,  the  only  acts  cliarged  as 
done  with  this  intent  are  the  delivery  of  a  speech  at  the  Executive  Mansion  in 
August,  1866,  and  two  speeches,  one  at  St.  Louis  and  the  other  at  Cleveland, 
in  September,  1866.     The  article  concludes  that  by  means  of  these  utterances — 

Said  Andrew  Johnson  has  brought  the  high  office  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
into  contempt,  ridicule,  and  disgrace,  to  the  great  scandal  of  all  good  citizens,  whereby 
said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  commit,  and  wag  then  and  there 
guilty  of,  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

That  is  the  gravavien  of  the  crime;  that  he  brought  the  presidential  office 
into  scandal  by  these  speeches  made  with  this  intent.  Senators  v/ill  judge  from 
the  reading  of  this  telegram,  dated  in  January,  1867,  whether  that  supports  the 
principal  charge  or  intent  of  his  derogating  from  the  credit  of  Congress  or  bring- 
ing the  presidential  office  into  discredit. 

The  eleventh  article  has  for  its  substantive  charge  nothing  but  the  making  of 
the  speech  of  the  18th  of  August,  1866,  saying  that  by  that  speech  he  declared 
and  affirmed — 

In  substance,  that  the  thirty-ninth  Congress  of  the  United  States  was  not  a  Congress  of 
the  United  States  authorized  by  the  Constitution  to  exercise  legislative  power  under  the 
same,  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  a  Congress  of  only  part  of  the  States,  thereby  denying,  and 
intending  to  deny,  that  the  legislation  of  said  Congress  was  valid  or  obligatory  upon  him, 
the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  except  in  so  far  as  he  saw  fit  to  approve  the  same,  and,  also, 
thereby  denying,  and  intending  to  deny,  the  power  of  the  said  thirty-ninth  Congress  to  pro- 
pose amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ;  and  in  pursuance  of  said  declara- 
tion— 

That  is,  in  pursuance  of  the  speech  made  at  the  Executive  Mansion  on  the 
18th  of  August,  1866— 

The  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  afterward,  to  wit,  on  the  21st 
day  of  February,  A.  D.  186d,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Cohimbia,  did, 
unlawfully,  and  in  disregard  of  the  requirement  of  the  Constitution  that  he  should  take  care 
that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  attempt  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An 
act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1867 — 

Which  was  after  the  date  of  this  despatch — 

By  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive,  means  by 
which  he  should  preveut  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  forthwith  resuming  the  functions  of  the 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War. 

The  court  will  consider  whether  this  despatch  touches  that  subject. 

And  also  by  further  unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  con- 
trive, means,  then  and  there,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "  An  act  making 
appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1868,  and  for 
other  purposes,"  ai)proved  March  2, 1867  ;  and  also  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled 
"An  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,"  passed  March  2,  J  867. 

Also,  after  the  date  of  this  despatch.     It  is  under  one  or  the  other  of  these 
18  I  P 


274  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

two  articles  that  tlais  despatcli  is,  in  its  date  and  in  its  substance,  supposed  to  be 
relevant.     I  will  read  it: 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  17,  1867. 

What  possible  g^ood  can  be  obtained  by  reconsiderinoj  tbe  constitutional  amendment?  I 
know  of  none  in  the  present  posture  of  aifairs  ;  and  I  do  not  believe  that  the  people  of  tbe 
whole  country  will  sustain  any  set  of  individuals  in  attempts  to  change  the  v.-bole  character 
of  our  government  by  enabling  acts  or  otherwise.  I  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  will 
eventually  uphold  all  who  have  patriotism  and  courage  to  stand  by  the  Constitution,  and 
■who  place  their  confidence  in  the  people.  There  should  be  no  faltering  on  the  part  of  those 
who  are  honest  in  their  determination  to  sustain  the  several  co-ordinate  departments  of  the 
government  in  accordance  with  its  original  design. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Hon.  Lewis  E.  Parsons,  Montgomery,  Alabama. 

There  is  uothinc;  here  pertinent  in  depreciation  of  Congress,  nothing  that 
tend-  to  the  pcaudal  of  the  presidential  office,  nothing  that  has  relation  to  the 
defeat  of  laws  not  then  passed,  and  not  possible  to  be  the  subject  of  crime  or 
misdemeanor  on  the  part  of  the  President  in  resisting  or  opposing;  and  we  find 
nothing  whatever  in  these  transactions — if  introduced  undoubtedly  leading  into 
a  wide  field  of  inquiry — that  touches  any  crime,  or  any  intent,  or  auy  purpose 
mentioned  in  these  articles. 

iVir.  Manager  Boutwell.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  if  this  evidence  is 
admissible  under  either  of  the  articles — and  I  have  no  doubt  it  is  admissible 
under  both  the  tenth  and  eleventh — it  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose.  It  is  enough 
that  we  show  it  to  be  admissible  under  one  ;  and  therefore  I  treat  the  proposi- 
tion to  introduce  this  evidence  under  the  eleventh  article  only — from  which  I 
think  it  must  appear  to  senators  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  upon  this  point.  If 
attention  be  given  to  the  eleventh  article  it  will  be  seen  that  we  charge  that  the 
President  did — 

On  the  18th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  18C6,  at  tbe  city  of  Washington,  and  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  by  public  speech,  declare  and  affirm,  in  substance,  that  the  SOth  Congress  of 
tbe  United  States  was  not  a  Congress  of  the  United  States  authorized  by  tbe  Constitution 
to  exercise  legislative  power  under  the  same,  but,  on  tbe  contraiy,  was  a  Congress  of  only 
part  of  the  States,  thereby  denying  and  intending  to  deny  that  tbe  legislation  of  said  Con- 
gress was  valid  or  obligatory  upon  him,  and  also  thereby  denying  and  intending  to  deny 
the  power  of  the  39th  Congress  to  propose  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States — 

Tl.e  veiy  subject  of  these  telegraphic  despatches — 

And  in  pursuance  of  said  declaration,  the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United 
States,  afterward,  to  wit,  on  tbe  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1808 — 

Which  we  understand  to  include  all  these  dates  between  the  time  when  the 
declaration  which  is  the  basis  of  this  article,  to  wit,  August  18,  1866,  up  to  and 
including  the  21st  of  February,  1868,  so  that  all  that  period  is  open  to  us  for 
the  introduction  of  testimony  showing  the  transactions  of  the  President  on  this 
point — 

On  the  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  18G8,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  district  of 
Columbia,  did,  unlawfully,  and  in  disregard  of  the  requirements  of  tlie  Constitution  that  he 
should  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  altemi)t  to  prevent  the  execution  of  au 
act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  ci\  i!  otfices,"  passed  March  2.  1807,  by 
unlawfully  devising  and  contriving,  and  attemiitiug  to  devise  and  contrive,  means  by  which 
he  should  [)revent  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  forthwith  resuming  the  functions  of  the  office  of 
Secretary  for  the  Departnuait  of  War,  notwithstanding  the  refusal  of  the  Senate  to  concur 
in  the  suspension  theretofore  made  by  said  Andrew  Jolinson  of  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from 
said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War;  and,  also,  by  further  unlawfully  devis- 
ing and  ciintiiviug,  and  attemjiting  to  devise  and  contrive  means,  then  and  there,  to  prevent 
the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army 
for  the  liscal  year  ending  Jmie  '.H\  In;8,  and  for  other  jmrposes,"  apjiroved  March  2,  I8ti7  ; 
and,  also,  to  prevont.the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient 
government  of  the  rebel  States,"  passed  March  2,  1807. 

Herein  we  Bee  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  influence  of  the  conduct  of  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  275 

President  in  sending  out  tins  telegTain.  Here  was  Mr.  Parsons,  who  is  known 
upon  public  tame  to  have  been  the  provisional  governor  of  the  State  of  Ala- 
bama in  the  year  1865  and  1S66,  a  man  of  influence  in  that  part  of  the  country, 
who  asks  the  President's  opinion  upon  the  very  matter  of  the  reconstruction  of 
the  rebel  States.     He  says  : 

Leg-islatiire  in  session.  Eft'orts  makiup^  to  reconsider  vote  on  constitutional  amendment. 
Report  t'roui  Washington  says  it  is  probable  an  enabling  act  will  pass. 

"Which,  undoubtedly,  related  to  those  acts  which  have  come  to  be  called  acts 
for  the  government  of  the  rebel  States,  enabling  acts  ;  measures  of  Congress, 
by  and  through  which  these  States  were  to  be  restored  to  the  Union.  He  asks 
the  opinion  of  the  President  as  to  what  they  shall  do.     He  says: 

We  do  not  know  what  to  believe. 

Now,  what  does  the  President  say? 

What  possible  good  can  be  obtained  by  reconsidering  the  constitutional  amendment? 

Which  had  been  rejected. 

I  know  of  none  in  the  present  posture  of  affairs  ;  and  I  do  not  believe  the  people  of  the 
whole  country  will  sustain  any  set  of  individuals — 

Here  is  the  gist  of  the  offence  of  this  particular  telegraphic  despatch,  and 
sho\\'ing,  also,  wherein  it  applies  under  the  charge  contained  in  the  eleventh 
article.  We  set  forth  in  the  eleventh  article  that  iu  August,  1866,  he  had 
charged  that  Congress  was  not  a  constitutional  body  representing  all  the  States 
of  the  Union.  In  this  despatch  he  speaks  of  Congress,  because  he  can  refer 
to  no  other  set  of  men,  as  a  "  set  of  individuals."     He  says  : 

I  do  ndt  believe  the  people  of  the  whole  country  will  sustain  any  set  of  individuals — 

Tlius  characterizing  Congress  as  a  set  of  individuals,  which  is  seen  in  what 
he  says  iu  regard  to  them — 
in  attempts  to  change  the  whole  character  of  our  government  by  enabling  acts  or  otherwise. 

And  we  say  that  herein  we  have  evidence  of  the  intent  of  the  President  to 
defeat  the  will  of  Congress  in  regard  to  the  enforcement  of  the  reconstruction 
laws,  which  is  precisely  the  offence  charged  against  him  in  the  eleventh  article 
preferred  by  the  House  of  Re^-esentatives.  I  am  reminded,  too,  that  the  origi- 
nal reconstruction  act  provides  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitutional  amendment 
as  one  of  the  conditions  precedent  to  or  coincident  with  the  right  of  a  State 
organized  under  the  reconstruction  laws  to  be  admitted  to  representation  iu 
Congress. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  desire  to  say  any- 
thing further  1 

Mr.  EvARTS  and  Mr.  Curtis.  Nothing  further. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  wish,  if  the  presiding  ofEcer  will  allow  me,  to  call 
attention  to  the  fifth  section  of  the  act  of  March  2,  1867,  known  as  the  recon- 
struction act,  which  is  the  act  described  in  the  eleventh  article,  which  provides  : 

And  when  such  constitution  shall  be  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  persons  voting  on  the 
question  of  ratification  who  are  qualified  as  electors  for  delegates,  and  when  such  coustitu- 
tion  shall  have  been  submitted  to  Congress  for  examination  and  approval,  and  Congress 
shall  have  approved  the  same,  and  when  said  State,  by  a  vote  of  its  legislature  elected  under 
said  constitution,  shall  have  adopted  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
proposed  by  the  thirty-ninth  Congress,  and  known  as  article  fourteen,  and  when  said  article 
shall  have  become  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  said  State  shall  be  entitled 
to  representation  iu  Congress,  and  senators  and  representatives  shall  be  admitted  therefrom 
on  their  taking  the  oaths  prescribed  by  law. 

So  that  the  adoption  of  the  fourteenth  article  is  a  part  of  the  reconstruction 
acts. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  desire  to  be  heard 
further  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  No,  sir. 


276  BIPEA.CHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  offer  a  question  to  the  managers. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  offered  by  the  senator  from  Michigan  will 
he  read. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Whut  amendmeut  of  the  Constitution  is  referred  to  in  Mr.  Parsons's  despatch  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  can  answer.  There  was  but  one  amendment  at 
that  time  pending  before  the  country,  and  that  was  known  as  the  fourteenth 
article,  the  one  concerning  which  I  have  just  read,  and  which  is  required  to  he 
adopted  by  every  State  legislature  before  the  State  can  be  admitted  to  repre- 
sentation in  Congress. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  the  managers  offer  in  support  of  the  accusa- 
tions of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  two  telegraphic  messages,  one  signed  by 
Lewis  E.  Parsons,  and  one  signed  by  Andrew  Johnson.  The  question  is,  is  the 
evidence  proposed  on  the  part  of  the  managers  admissible  ? 

Mr.  Drake.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  27,  nays 
17  J  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Ciiandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Cragin,  Drake,  Henderson,  Howard,  Morgan,  Jlorrill  of  Vermont,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New 
Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton, 
Willey,  and  Wilson — 27. 

Nays — Messrs.  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Ednumds,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Fowler, 
Frelinghnysen,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Trumbull, 
Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Williams— 17. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Bayard,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Hendricks,  Howe,  Johnson,  Slorton, 
Saulsbury,  Wade,  and  Yates — 10. 

So  the  evidence  was  admitted. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  suppose  that  the  despatches  need  not  be  read  again  ; 
they  have  been  read  once  or  twice. 

Mr.  Curtis.  No;  we  waive  the  further  reading. 

Mr.  Doolittle.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  the  hour  of  iive  having  arrived,  1  move 
that  the  court  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  twelve  o'clock. 

TheCniEF  Justice.  It  is  moved  that  the  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeach- 
ment now  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  twelve  o'clock. 

The  question  being  put,  it  was  declared  that  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to, 

Mr.  Fowler.  I  call  for  a  division. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  result  has  been  announced.  It  is  too  late  to  call 
for  a  division. 

Mr.  Ramsey.  The  question  was  not  understood,  I  think. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  that  be  the  case,  the  question  will  be  put  again. 

The  question  being  put  again,  the  Chief  Justice  declared  that  the  motion 
appeared  to  be  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CoiV.MESS  and  Mr.  Sumner  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were 
ordered  ;  and  being  taken,  resulted— yeas  22,  nays  22  ;  as  folloAvs  : 

Yeas- -Messrs.  Anthony,  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle, 
Fowler,  Frelinghnysen,  Henderson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton,  Patterson  of 
Tennessee,  Ramsey,  Sj)rague,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — '22. 

NaYH — Messrs.  Cattell,  Chiuidler,  Colo,  Conkliug,  Conness,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Fessenden, 
Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Nye,  Putterscni  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy, 
Koss,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Williams,  and  Wilsim — 22. 

Not  votinc! — Messrs.  Bayard,  Ferry,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  Morton, 
Saulsbury,  Wade,  and  Yates — 10. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  (mestion  the  j^eas  are  22,  and  the  nays  are  22. 
The  Chief  Justice  votes  in  the  allirmative.  The  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of 
impeachmentj  stands  adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  277 


Friday,  April  3,  1868. 

The  Chief  Justice 'of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at  five 
minutes  past  12  o'clock  and  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  also  appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  headed  by  Mr.  E.  B. 
"VVashburne,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker 
and  Clerk,  entered  the  Senate  chamber,  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  pro- 
vided for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  minutes  of  the  last  day's 
proceedings. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  yesterday 
sitting-  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 

Mr.  Drake.  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  the  Senate  take  up  the  proposition 
which  I  offered  yesterday,  to  amend  the  seventh  rule,  and  have  a  vote  upon  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Theamendment  will  be  considered  as  before  the  Senate 
unless  objected  to. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  Let  it  be  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Amend  the  seventh  rule  by  adding  the  following : 

Upon  all  such  questions  the  vote  shall  be  without  a  division,  unless  the  yeas  and  nays  be 
demanded  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  present  or  requested  by  the  presiding  officer,  when 
the  same  shall  be  taken. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  Mr.  President,  I  move  to  strike  out  that  part  of  it  relating  to 
the  yeas  and  nh,ys  being  taken  upon  the  request  of  the  presiding  officer. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  Not  having  heard  the  motion  of  the  senator  from  Vermont, 
I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  seventh  rule  as  it  is  now,  which  is  not  before  us, 
and  which  we  have  no  meaus  of  knowing  anything  about. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  seventh  rule. 

The  Secretary.  The  seventh  rule  is  as  follows : 

VII,  The  presiding  officer  of  tlie  Senate  shall  direct  all  necessary  preparations  in  the 
Senate  chamber,  and  the  presiding  officer  on  the  trial  shall  direct  all  the  forms  of  proceeding 
■while  the  Senate  are  sitting  for  the  purpose  of  trying  an  impeachment,  and  all  forms  during 
the  trial  not  otherwise  specially  provided  for.  And  the  presiding  officer  on  the  trial  may 
rule  all  questions  of  evidence  and  incidental  questions,  which  ruling  shall  stand  as  the 
judgment  of  the  Senate,  unless  some  member  of  the  Senate  shall  ask  that  a  formal  vote  be 
taken  thereon,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  decision ;  or  he  may,  at 
his  option,  in  the  first  instance,  submit  any  such  question  to  a  vote  of  the  members  of  the 
Senate. 

It  is  proposed  to  add  the  following  to  the  rule : 

Upon  all  such  questions  the  vote  shall  be  without  a  division,  unless  the  yeas  and  nays  be 
demanded  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  present,  or  requested  by  the  presiding  officer,  when 
the  same  shall  be  taken. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  honorable 
senator  from  Vermont. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  amendment  to  the  rule  will  be  so  modified  if  there 
be  no  objection.     (To  the  chief  clerk.)     Read  .the  amendment  as  modified. 

The  chief  clerk  read  the  amendment  as  modified,  as  follows: 

At  the  end  of  rule  seven  insert: 

Upon  all  such  questions  the  vote  shall  be  without  a  division,  unless  the  yeas  and  nays  be 
demanded  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  present,  when  the  same  shall  be  taken. 

The  amendment  to  the  rules,  as  modified,  was  agreed  to. . 


278  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  move  that  the  rules,  as  now  amended,  be  printed  for  the  use  of 
the  Senate.  ^ 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives will  proceed  with  their  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Before  putting  any  question  to  Mr.  Tinker,  the  witness 
under  examination  at  the  adjournment,  I  will  put  in  a  single  paper  with  the  leave 
of  the  court.  The  paper  is  a  "message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
communicating  to  the  Senate  a  report  of  the  Secretaiy  of  State,  showing  the 
proceedings  under  the  concurrent  resolution  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress  of 
the  13th  instant,  requesting  the  President  to  submit  to  the  Icgislatui'es  of  the 
States  an  additional  article  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Stanbery.   What  article  is  that?     What  date? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  fourteenth  article.  The  document  is  dated  June 
22,  1SG6.  It  is  the  same  article  to  which  the  despatch  related.  We  offer  it  iu 
order  to  show  to  what  the  despatch  refei-red. 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.) 

Mr.  Stanbeey,  (returning  it )  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  do  not  see  the  particu- 
lar relevancy  of  this  message  to  any  article  which  we  are  called  upon  to  answer. 
However,  we  have  no  objection  to  the  gentleman  reading  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  Clerk,  will  you  read  the  message? 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

Message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  communicating  to  tkn  Senate  a  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  shoicing  the  proceedings  under  concurrent  resolutions  of  the  two  houses 
of  Congress  of  the  ]'ilh  instant,  requestins  the  Presidivt  to  submit  to  the  legislatures  of  the 
States  an  additional  article  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  : 

I  submit  to  Congress  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  the  concnr- 
reut  resolution  of  the  ]8tli  iustant,  respectiufr  a  submission  to  the  legislatures  of  the  States 
of  an  additional  article  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  will  be  seen  from  this 
report  that  the  Secretary  of  State  had,  on  the  Kith  instant*,  trausmitted  to  the  governors  of 
the  several  States  certitied  copies  of  the  joint  resolution  passed  ou  the  13th  instant,  proposing 
an  ameiidnient  to  the  Constitution. 

Even  in  ordinary  times  any  question  of  amending  the  Constitution  must  be  justly  regarded 
as  of  paramount  importance.  This  importance  is  at  the  present  time  enhanced  by  the  fact 
that  the  joint  resolution  was  not  submitted  by  tlie  two  houses  for  the  approval  of  the  Presi-- 
dent,  and  that  of  the  thirty-six  States  which  constitutes  the  Union  eleven  are  excluded  from 
representation  iu  either  house  of  Congress,  although,  with  the  single  exception  of  Texas, 
they  iiave  been  entirely  restored  to  all  their  functions  as  States,  in  conformity  with  the 
organic  law  of  the  land,  and  have  appeared  at  the  national  capital  by  senators  and  represen- 
tatives wiio  have  applied  for  and  have  been  refused  admission  to  the  vacant  scats.  Nor  liave  the 
sovereign  people  of  the  nation  been  afforded  an  opportunity  of  expressing  their  views.upon 
tiie  important  (juestions  which  the  amendment  involves.  Grave  doubts,  therefore,  may 
naturally  and  justly  arise  as  to  whether  the  action  of  Congress  is  in  harmony  with  the  senti- 
ments of  the.  people,  and  whether  State  legislatures,  elected  without  reference  to  such  an 
issue,  shiiuld  be  called  upon  by  Congress  to  decide  respecting  the  ratitication  of  the  proposed 
amendment. 

Waiving  tlie  (piestion  as  to  the  constitutional  validity  of  the  proceedings  of  Congress  upon 
tlic  joint  resolution  proposing  the  amendment,  or  as  to  the  merits  of  the  article  which  it  sub- 
mits, through  the  executive  department,  to  the  legislatures  of  the  States,  I  deem  it  jjroper  to 
observe  that  the  steps  taken  by  the  Secretary  of  St.ite,  as  detailed  in  the  accompanying  report, 
are  to  be  considered  as  purely  ministerial,  and  in  no  sense  whatever  conunittiug  the  Execu- 
tive to  an  approval  or  a  reconnnendation  of  the  amendment  to  the  State  legislatures  or  to  the 
people.  On  the  contrary,  a  projjer  apjtreciation  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Constitution, 
as  well  as  of  the  interests  of  national  order,  harmony,  and  union,  and  a  due  deference  for  an 
enlightened  jjublic  judgment,  miiy  at  this  time  well  suggest  a  doubt  whether  any  ameildment 
to  the  Constitution  "ought  to  be  proposed  by  Congress,  and  pressed  ujion  tlie  legislatures  of 
the  several  States  for  iinal  decision,  until  after  the  admission  of  such  loyal  senators  and  rep- 
resentatives of  the  now  uinepresented  States  as  have  been  or  as  may  hereafter  be  chosen  iu 
couformitv  with  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Washington,  D.  C,  June  22,  186G. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  279 

Department  of  State,  JFashington,  Ju7ie2<),  1S66. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  the  concurrent  resohition  of  the  two  houses 
of  Congress  of  the  18th  instant  in  the  following  words :  "  That  tlie  President  of  tlio  United 
States  be  requested  to  transmit  forthwith  to  the  executives  of  the  several  States  of  the  United 
States  copies  of  the  article  of  aniendinent  proposed  by  Congress  to  the  State  legislatures,  to 
amend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  passed  June  V.i,  1866,  respecting  citizenship, 
the  basis  of  representation,  disqualiiication  for  olifice,  and  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the 
United  States,  Sec,  to  the  end  that  tlie  said  States  may  proceed  to  act  upon  the  said  aiticle 
of  amendment,  and  that  he  request  the  executive  of  each  State  that  may  ratify  said  amend- 
ment to  transmit  to  the  Secretary  of  State  a  certified  copy  of  such  ratification, "  has  the  honor 
to  submit  the  following  report,  namely :  that  on  the  Kith  instant  Hon.  Amasa  Cobb,  of  the 
committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Enrolled  Bills,  brought  to  this  dei)artment  and 
deposited  therein  an  enrolled  resolution  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  which  was  thereupon 
received  by  the  Secretary  of  State  and  deposited  among  the  rolls  of  the  department,  a  copy 
of  which  is  hereunto  annexed.  Thereupon  the  Secretary  of  State,  on  the  Kith  instant,  iu 
conformity  with  the  proceeding  which  was  adopted  by  him  in  18G5  in  regard  to  the  then  pro- 
posed and  afterward  adopted  congressional  amejidment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  concerning  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  transmitted  certified  copies  of  the  annexed  res- 
olution to  the  governors  of  the  several  States,  together  with  a  certificate  and  circular  letter. 
A  copy  of  both  of  these  communications  is  hereunto  annexed. 
Respectfully  submitted : 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

The  President. 

[Circular.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  16,  1866. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  an  attested  copy  of  a  resolution  of  Congress,  proposing 
to  the  legislatures  of  the  several  States  a  fourteenth  article  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  The  decisions  of  the  several  legislatures  upon  the  subject  are  required  by  law  to  be 
communicated  to  this  department. 

An  acknowledgment  of  the  receipt  of  this  communication  is  requested  by  your  excellen- 
cy's most  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

His  Exgelleacy  the  GOVERNOR  of  the  State  of . 

United  States  of  America, 

«  Department  of  State. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting  : 

I  certify  that  the  annexed  is  a  true  copy  of  a  concurrent  resolution  of  Congress,  entitled 
"Joint  resolution  proposing  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  tlie  United  States,"  the 
original  of  which  resolution,  received  to-day,  is  on  file  in  this  department. 

in  testimony  whereof,  I,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 
have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State  to  be 
aflSxed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  this  16th  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1866,  and  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States  of  America  the  ninetieth. 

[seal.]  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

[Concurrent  resolution  received  at  Department  of  State,  June  16,  1866.] 

JOINT  RESOLUTION  proposing  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Resolved  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assembled,  (two-thirds  of  both  houses  concurring,)  That  the  following  article  be 
proposed  to  the  legislatures  of  the  several  States  as  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which,  when  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  said  legislatures,  shall  be  valid  as 
part  of  the  Constitution,  namely : 

ARTICLE   XIV. 

Section  1.  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States  and  subject  to  the  juris- 
diction thereof  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  wherein  the3'  reside.  No 
State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States ;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property 
without  due  process  of  law,  nor  deny  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection 
of  the  laws. 

Sec.  2.  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  according  to  their 
respective  numbers,  counting  the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State,  excluding  Indians 


280  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

not  taxed.  But  when  the  rif^ht  to  vote  at  any  election  for  tlie  choice  of  electors  for  President 
and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  representatives  in  Congress,  the  executive  and 
judicial  officers  of  a  State,  or  the  members  of  the  legislature  thereof,  is  denied  to  any  of  the 
male  inhabitants  of  such  State  being  twenty-one  j'ears  of  age  and  citizens  of  the  1 'uited 
States,  or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in  rebellion  or  other  crime,  the  basis 
of  representation  therein  shall  be  reduced  in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of  such  male 
citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  male  citizens  twenty- one  years  of  age  in  such  State. 

Sec.  3.  No  person  shall  be  a  senator  or  representative  in  Congress,  or  elector  of  President 
and  Vice-President,  or  hold  any  ofSce,  civil  or  military,  under  the  United  States,  or  under 
any  State,  who,  having  previously  taken  an  oath  as  a  member  of  Congress,  or  as  an  officer 
of  the  United  States,  or  as  a  member  of  any  State  legislature,  or  as  an  executive  or  judicial 
officer  of  any  State,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  shall  have  engaged  in 
insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  same,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof. 
But  Congress  may  hj  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  each  house  remove  such  disability. 

Sec.  4.  The  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States,  authorized  by  law,  including 
debts  incurred  for  payment  of  pensions  and  bounties  for  services  in  suppressing  insurrection 
or  rebellion,  shall  not  be  qviestioned.  But  neither  theUnited  States  nor  any  State  shall  assuuie 
or  pay  any  debt  or  obligation  incurred  in  aid  of  insurrectiou  or  rebellion  against  the  United 
States,  or  any  claim  for  the  loss  or  emancipation  of  any  slave ;  but  all  such  debts,  obligations, 
and  claims  shall  be  held  illegal  and  void. 

Sec.  5.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce,  by  appropriate  legislation,  the  pro- 
visions of  this  article. 

SCHUYLER  COLFAX, 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
LA  FAYETTE  S.  FOSTER, 
President  of  the  Senate  pro  tempore. 

Attest : 

Edward  McPherson,  ♦ 

Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
J.  W.  Forney, 

Secretary  of  the  Senate. 

[To  Avbich  is  appended  the  certificate  of  J.  W.  Forney,  Secretary  of  the 
Senate,  dated  April  2,  1868,  that  the  foregoing  are  tv\\^  extracts  from  the  record* 
of  the  Senate.]  , 

Chakles  a.  Ti.\kei!'s  examination  resumed. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butlrr  : 

Qucgtion.  Yon  told  us  yesterday  you  were  manager  of  the  Western  Union 
telegraph  office.  Have  you  from  that  office  what  {lurports  to  be  a  copy  of  a 
speech  which  was  telegraphed  to  the  country  or  any  portion  of  the  country,  as 
made  by  Andrew  Johnson  on  the  18th  of  August,  1866?  if  so,  produce  it. 

]\Ir.  JJRAKE,  I  will  state  that  we  have  not  heard  the  question  put  by  the  hon- 
orable manager. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  manager  will  be  good  enough  to  repeat  the  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  It  is  whether,  being  agent  of  the  Western  Union 
Telegraph  Company,  you  have  what  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  a  speech  which 
was  telegraphed  over  that  line,  made  by  Andrew  Johnson  on  the  ISth  day  of 
August,  1866;  if  so,  produce  it. 

Answer.  I  have  the  files  of  the  Associated  Press  despatches  sent  on  that  day, 
containing  what  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  the  speech  delivered  by  the  President. 
[Producing  a  roll  of  manuscript  ] 

Q.  From  the  course  of  business  of  the  office  are  you  enabled  to  state  whether 
this  was  sent  1 

A.  It  has  the  "  sent"  marks  put  upon  all  despatches  sent  over  the  line. 

Q.  And  this  is  the  original  manuscript  1 

A.  That  is  the  original  manuscript  telegraphed. 

Q.  ]^y  what  association  was  this  speech  telegraphed  ? 

A.  By  the  Associated  Press,  by  their  agent  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

Mr.  CuRTl*.  We  must  object  to  this,  General  Butler.  lie  says  it  has  a 
mark  on  it.  He  does  not  say  he  put  the  mark  on  it,  or  that  he  knows  that  any- 
thing was  done,  thus  far. 


IMPEA.CHMENT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  281 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  tlic  witness.)  Can  you  tell  me,  sir,  to  what  extent 
over  tlie  country  the  telegraphic  messages  sent  by  the  Associated  Press  go  ? 

A.  I  suppose  they  go  to  all  parts  of  the  country ;  I  cannot  state  positively. 
They  are  telegraphed  direct  from  Washington  to  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and 
Baltimore,  there  addressed  to  the  agents  of  the.  Associated  Press,  and  from  New 
Yoi'k  they  are  distributed  through  the  country. 

j\Ir.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  The  witness  is 
yours,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  will  not  detain  you,  Mr.  Tinker. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  can  step  down  for  the  present,  Mr.  Tinker;  but 
do  not  leave. 

James  B.  Sheridan  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Your  whole  name,  Mr.  Sheridan? 

A.  James  Bernard  Sheridan  1 

Q.  What  is  your  business  1 

A.  I  am  a  stenographer. 

Q.  Where  employed  ? 

A.  At  present  in  New  York  city. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  on  the  18th  of  August,  1866  ? 

A.  I  was  a  stenographer.      • 

Q.  State  whether  you  reported  a  speech  of  the  President  on  the  ISth  of 
August,  1866,  in  the  East  Room  of  the  President's  Mansion. 

A.  1  did. 

Q.  Have  you  the  notes  taken  at  the  time  of  that  speech  ? 

A.  I  have ;   [producing  a  note-book  containing  short-hand  notes.] 

Q.  Did  you  take  down  that  speech  correctly  as  it  was  given  ? 

A.  I  did,  'to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

Q.  How  long  experience  have  you  had  as  a  reporter? 

A.  Some  fourteen  years  now. 

Q.  Did  you  write  out  that  speech  at  the  time  ? 

A.  I  wrote  out  a  part  of  it. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  At  the  Presidential  Mansion. 

Q.  Who  was  present? 

A.  There  were  several  reporters  present — Mr.  Clephane,  Mr.  Smith. 

Q.  What  Clephane?     Do  you  remember  his  first  name  ? 

A.  James,  I  think,  is  his  first  name. 

Q.   What  Mr.  Smith? 

A.  Francis  H.,  I  believe,  is  his  name. 

Q.  The  official  reporter  of  the  House? 

A.  At  that  time,  I  believe,  he  was  connected  with  the  House. 

Q.  Who  else? 

A.  I  think  Colonel  Moore  was  in  the  room  part  of  the  time ;  I  do  not  know 
that  he  was  in  all  the  time. 

Q.  What  Colonel  Moore? 

A.  The  President's  private  secretary,  William  Gr. 

Q.  After  it  was  written  out,  what,  if  anything,  was  done  with  it? 

Mr.  Curtis.  He  says  he  wrote  a  part. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  part  that  you  wrote  out? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  I  think  Mr.  Moore  took  it.  I  was  very  sick  at  the  time, 
and  did  not  pay  much  attention  to  what  was  going  on. 

Q.  You  think  Mr.  Moore  took  it? 

A.  I  think  either  he  or  Mr.  Smith  took  it,  as  I  wrote  out  my  share  of  it. 


282  IMPEACUMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Wetdivided  it  among  us  ;  Mr.  Clephane,  Mr.  Smith,  and  I  wrote  out  the  spcecb, 
I  think. 

Q.  Look  at  that  manuscript,  [handing  to  the  M'itness  the  manuscript  pro- 
duced^by  0.  A,  Tinker,]  and  see  whether  you  recognize  your  handwriting. 

The  Witness,  (having  examined  the  manuscript.)  No,  sir;  I  do  not  recog- 
nize any  of  the  writing  here  as  mine. 

Q.  Have  you  since  written  out  from  your  notes  any  portion  of  the  speech  as 
you  reported  it  ? 

A.  I  wrote  out  a  couple  of  extracts  from  it. 

Q.  (Handing  a  paper  to  the  witness.)  Is  that  your  writing? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  what  you  hold  in  your  hand  is  a  correct  transcript  of  that 
speech  made  from  yonr  notes  1 

A.  It  is.  • 

Q.   When  was  that  written  1 

A.  It  was  written  when  I  appeared  before  the  board  of  managers. 

Q.  Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  put  your  initials  upon  it  ?  (The  witness 
marked  it  J,  B.  S  ) 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  The  witness  is 
yours,  gpntlemen. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Have  you  got  through  with  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  said  the  witness  was  yours,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Is  this  all  ycoi  expect  of  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  All  at  present,  and  we  may  never  recall  him. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  ^ou  have  produced  a  note-book  of  original  stenographic  report  of  a  speech 
of  the  President  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  of  the  whole  speech  ?  '  , 

A.  Of  the  whole  speech. 

Q.  Was  it  wholly  made  by  you  1 

A.  By  me ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  the  speech  occupy  in  the  delivery? 

A.  Well,  I  suppose  some  twenty  or  twenty-five  minutes. 

Q.  By  what  method  of  stenographic  reporting  did  you  proceed  on  that  occa- 
sion ? 

A.  Pitman's  system  of  phonography. 

Q.  Which  is,  as  I  understand,  reporting  by  sound,  and  not  by  sense  ? 

A.  We  report  the  sense  by  the  sound. 

Q.  I  understand  you  report  by  sound  wholly  ? 

A.  Signs. 

Q.  And  not  by  memory  of  or  attention  to  sense? 

A.  No  good  reporter  can  report  unless  he  always  pays  attention  and  under- 
stands the  sense  of  what  he  is  reporting. 

Q.  That  is  the  very  point  I  wish  to  arrive  at,  whether  you  are  attending  to 
the  sound  and  setting  it  down  in  your  notation,  or  whether  you  are  attending 
to  the  sense  and  setting  it  down  from  your  memory  or  attention  to  the  sense  1 

A.  Both. 

Q.  Both  at  the  same  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Yoyr  characters  are  arbitrary,  are  they  not ;  that  is,  they  are  peculiar  to 
your  art  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  are  not  letters  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  283 

Q.  Nor  words  ? 

A.  We  have  word  signs. 

Q.  Bat  generally  sound  signs  ? 

A.  "We  have  signs  for  sounds,  just  as  the  letters  of  the. alphabet  represent 
sounds. 

Q.  But  not  the  same  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  This  transcript  that  you  made  of  a  portion  of  your  report  for  the  use  of 
the  committee  was  made  recently,  I  suppose?     . 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  a  few  weeks  ago. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  what  in  the  practice  of  your  art  is  the  experience  as  to  the 
accuracy  of  transcribing  from  these  stenographic  notes  after  the  lapse  of  a  con- 
siderable period  of  time  ? 

A.  Perhaps  I  can  illustrate  better  by  the  present  case — this  report  which  I 
made  here — the  extract  I  gave  when  I  was  called  before  the  managers,  as  I  had 
accompanied  the  President,  on  his  tour.  I  did  not  know  what  they  wanted  me 
for  ;  and  when  they  told  me  to  turn  to  this  speech  I  did  not  even  know  that  I  had 
the  notes  of  it  with  me ;  but  I  turned  to  the  speech,  and  found  it  there  in  the 
book,  and  I  read  off,  as  they  requested  I  should,  the  extracts  which  the  mana- 
gers for  the  prosecution  handed  me,  which  I  identified. 

Q.  You  read,  then,  from  your  stenographic  notes  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  taken  down  ? 

A.  The  reporter  of  the  managers,  I  believe,  took  it  down ;  but  I  afterward 
wrnte  it  out  for  them. 

Q.  You  do  not  make  a  sign  for  every  M'ord  t 

A.  Almost  every  word.  "  Of  the  "  we  generally  drop,  and  indicate  that  by 
putting  the  two  words  closer  together.  Of  course,  we  have  rules  governing  us  in 
writing. 

Q.  That  is,  you  have  signs  which  belong  to  every  word,  excepting  when  you 
drop  the  particles  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  not,  as  a  matter  of  course,  a  sign  that  is  the  representative  of  a  whole 
word  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  we  have  signs  representing  words. 

Q.  Some  signs  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  instance,  for  the  word  "  jnrisprudence,"  you  have  no  one  sign  that 
represents  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  should  write  that  "j-r-s-p." 

Q.  And  that  is  an  illustration  of  your  course  of  proceeding,  is  it  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  these  letters  that  you  thus  use,  or  only  signs  that  represent  letters  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  ("to  the  witness.)   That  is  all. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  all  for  the  present ;  remain  within  call. 

James  0.  Oi.ephanr  swoi-n  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  "What  is  your  business  1 

A.  I  am  at  present  deputy  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

Q.  "What  was  yoiu"  employment  on  the  ISth  of  August,  1866  ? 
A.  I  was  then  secretary  to  Governor  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 
Q.  Are  you  a  phonographic  reporter  ? 
A.  I  am. 


284  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  How  considerable  lias  been  your  experience? 

A.  Some  eight  or  nine  years. 

Q.  Were  you  employed  on  the  ISth  of  August,  lS66,to  make  a  report  of  tlie 
President's  speech  in  reply  to  Mr.  Johnson  ? 

A.  I  Avas.  I  was  engaged  in  connection  with  Mr.  Smith  for  the  Associated 
Press,  and  also  for  the  Daily  Chronicle  at  Washington. 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  report  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  was  this  speech  made  ? 

A.  In  the  East  Room  of  the  White  House. 

Q.  You  say  it  was  in  reply  to  Mr.  Johnson  ? 

A.  It  was  in  reply  to  Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson. 

Q.   State  partially  who  were  present  ? 

A.  There  were  a  great  many  persons  present — the  committee  of  the  con- 
vention. I  noticed  among  the  prominent  personages  General  Grant,  who  stood 
beside  the  President  during  the  delivery  of  the  speech.  Several  reporters  were 
present — Mr.  Murphy,  Mr.  Sheridan,  Mr.  Smith,  and  some  others. 

Q.  Were  any  of  the  cabinet  officers  present  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  Avhether  any  of  them  were  present  or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  report  that  speech? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  was  done  with  that  report  ?     State  all  the  circumstances. 

A.  With  regard  to  the  Associated  Press  report  I  will  state  that  Colonel 
Moore,  the  President's  private  secretary,  desired  the  privilege  of  revising  it 
before  publication  ;  and,  in  order  to  expedite  matters,  Mr.  Sheridan,  Mr  Smith, 
and  myself  united  in  the  labor  of  transcribing  it ;  Mr  Sheridan  transcribed  one 
portion,  Mr.  Smith  another,  and  I  a  third.  After  it  was  revised  by  Colonel 
Moore  it  was  then  taken  and  handed  to  the  agent  of  the  Associated  Press,  who 
telegraphed  it  throughout  the  country. 

Q.  Look  at  that  roll  of  manuscript  lying  before  you  and  see  if  that  is  the 
speech  that  you  transcribed  and  Moore  corrected. 

A.  (Having  examined  the  manuscript  produced  by  C.  A.  Tinker.)  I  will 
state  here  that  I  do  not  recognize  any  of  my  writing.  It  is  possibh^  I  may 
have  dictated  to  along-hand  writer  on  that  occasion  my  portion,  though  I  am  not 
positive  in  regard  to  that. 

Q.  Who  was  present  at  the  time  of  tlie  writing  out? 

A.  Mr.  Smith,  Mr.  Sheridan,  and  Colonel  Moore,  as  far  as  I  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Colonel  Moore's  handwriting  1 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  send  your  report  to  the  Chronicle  ? 

A.  I  would  state  that  Mr.  McFarland,  who  had  engaged  me  to  report  for  the 
Chronicle,  was  unwilling  to  take  the  revised  report  of  the  President's  speech  as 
made  by  Colonel  Moore.  He  desired  to  have  the  speech  as  it  was  delivered,  as 
he  stated,  with  all  its  imperfections,  and,  as  he  insisted  upon  my  rewriting  the 
speech,  I  did  so,  and  it  was  published  in  the  Sunday  Morning  Chronicle  of  the 
19th. 

Q.  Have  you  a  copy  of  that  paper  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  After  that  report  was  published  in  the  Chronicle  of  Sunday  morning,  the 
19th,  did  you  sec  the  report  ] 

A.  I  did,  sir,  and  examined  it  very  carefully,  because  I  had  a  little  curiosity 
to  see  how  it  would  read  under  the  circumstances,  being  a  literal  report,  with 
the  exception  of  a  word,  perhaps,  changed  here  •;ind  there. 

Q.  You  say  with  the  exception  of  a  word  changed  here  and  there ;  how  ? 

A.  Where  the  sentence  was  very  awkward,  and  where  the  meaning  was 
obscure,  doubtless  in  that  case  I  made  a  change.     1  recollect  doing  it  in  one  or 


IMPEACHMENT   OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  285 

two  instances,  though  I  may  not  be  able  to  point  them  out  just  now.  If  I  had 
my  orig-inal  notes  1  couhl  do  so. 

Q.  With  what  certainty  can  you  speak  as  to  the  Chronicle's  report  being  an 
accurate  one  1 

A.  I  think  I  can  speak  with  certainty  as  to  its  being  accurate,  a  literal  report, 
with  the  exception  that  I  have  named — perhaps  a  word  or  two  here  and  there 
changed,  in  order  to  make  the  meaning  more  intelligible,  or  to  make  the  sentence 
a  little  more  round. 

Q.  Will  you  give  us  an  illustration  of  that  change  ? 

Mr.  Eva  UTS.  Some  instance. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.    Yes,  some  instance. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  He  said  he  could  not  recollect. 

The  Witness.  I  will  state  that  my  attention  was  called  to  a  particular 
instance;  I  think  it  was  a  day  or  two  after.  Some  correspondent,  learning  that 
the  Chronicle  had  published  a  verbatim  report,  had  carefully  scrutinized  it — - 
some  correspondent  who  had  listened  to  the  delivery  of  the  speech;  and  he 
wrote  to  the  Chronicle  a  complaint  of  its  not  being  so,  as,  in  one  instance,  there 
was  an  expression  of  "  you  and  I  has  saw,"  or  something  of  that  sort,  and  that 
sentence,  of  course,  was  corrected  in  the  report  published  in  the  Chronicle.  It 
appeared  in  the  notes  "  you  and  I  has  saw,"  as  this  correspondent  stated. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  How  was  it  corrected  in  trhe  Chronicle? 

A.  "You  and  myself  have  seen,"  or  something  to  that  effect;  I  do  not  now 
remember. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  informed,  Mr.  President,  there  being  two  manu- 
scripts, that  Mr.  Tinker  has  given  me  the  one  which  was  Avritten  out  at  length 
as  a  duplicate,  and  not  the  original,  as  I  had  supposed,  and  I  shall  have  to  ask 
to  bring  him  on  again.  T  have  sent  for  him  for  that  purpose.  He  will  be  here 
in  a  moment.  -This  witness  is  yours,  gentlemen,  (to  the  counsel  for  the 
respondent.) 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts: 

Q.  You  acted  upon  the  employment  of  the  Associated  Press? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  in  connection  with  Mr.  Smith. 

Q.  You  were  jointly  to  make  a  reporii,  were  you? 

A.  We  were  to  take  notes  of  the  entire  speech,  each  of  us,  and  then  we  were 
to  divide  the  labor  of  transcribing. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  take  phonographic  notes  of  the  whole  speech  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  are  your  phonographic  notes  ? 

A.  I  have  searched  for  them,  but  cannot  find  them. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  at  any  time  after  you  had  completed  the  phonographic  notes 
did  you  translate  or  write  them  out  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  The  whole  ? 

A.  The  Avhole  speech. 

Q.  Where  is  that  translation  or  written  transcript  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know,  sir.  The  manuscript,  of  course,  was  left  in  the  Chronicle 
office.     I  wrote  it  out  for  the  Chronicle. 

Q.  You  have  never  seen  it  since,  have  you  1 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Have  you  made  any  search  for  it  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  And  these  two  acts  of  yours,  the  phonographic  report  and  the  translation 
or  writing  out,  are  all  that  you  had  to  do  with  the  speech,  are  they  ? 


286  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  Yea,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  that  subsequently  you  read  a  priutcd  newspaper  cop^  of 
the  speech  in  the  Washington  Chronicle  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  you  read  that  newspaper  copy  ? 

A.  On  the  morning  of  the  publication,  August  ll»,  Sunday  morning. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  you  read  it  ? 

A.  I  presume  I  was  at  my  room.     I  generally  saw  the  Chronicle  there. 

Q.  And  you  there  read  it  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  this  curiosity  that  vou  had  ? 

A.  Yes.     I  read  it  more  carefully  because  of  that  reason. 

Q.  Had  you  before  you  your  phonographic  notes,  or  your  written  transcript 
from  them  ? 

A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  And  had  not  seen  and  have  never  seen  them  in  comparison  with  the  news- 
paper copy  before  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q  (Handing  to  the  witness  a  bound  volume  of  the  Washington  Daily  Chron- 
icle.) Have  you  before  you  a  copy  of  the  Sunday  Morning  Chronicle  of  the 
19th  of  August,  1866  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Look  upon  the  page  before  you  and  see  if  you  can  find  the  speech  as  you 
reported  it. 

A.  I  find  it  here,  sir. 

Q.  Look  at  that  speech,  look  at  it  a  little  carefully,  and  tell  me  whether  you 
have  any  doubt  that  that  is  a  correct  report,  .a  verhatiin  report  of  the  speech  of 
Andrew  Johnson  on  that  occasion ;  and  if  so>  what  ground  have  you  for  doubt  1 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  object  to  that  as  a  mode  of  proving  the 
speech.  It  is  apparent  that  there  is  a  report  of  this  speech,  and  that  it  has  been 
written  out,  and  that  is  the  best  and  most  trustworthy  evidence  of  the  actual 
speech,  as  made.  Li  all  legal  proceedings  we  are  entitled  to  that  degree  of 
accuracy  and  trustworthiness  which  the  nature  of  the  case  admits  ;  and  Avhen- 
ever  evidence  of  that  decree  of  authenticity  is  presented,  then,  for  the  first  time, 
will  arise  the  consideration  of  whether  the  evidence  is  competent  and  should  be 
received.  Now,  it  is  impossible  to  contend,  upon  the  testimony  of  this  witness, 
as  it  stands  at  present,  that  he  remembers  the  speech  of  the  President  so  that 
he  can  produce  it  by  recital,  or  so  that  he  can  say  upon  any  memorandum  df  his 
own  shown  him  (for  none  is  shown)  that  from  memory  he  can  say  it  is  the 
speech.  What  is  offered  ?  The  same  kind  of  evidence,  and  thut  alone,  which 
would  grow  out  of  some  person  who  heard -the  President  deliver  the  speech,  and 
subsequently  read  in  the  Chronicle  the  report  of  it,  that  he  thinks  that  report 
was  a  true  statement  of  the  speech ;  for  this  witness  has  told  us  distinctly  that 
reading  this  speech  from  curiosity,  to  see  how  it  would  appear  when  reproduced, 
without  the  ordinary  guarantees  of  accuracy,  he  had  neither  his  original  notes 
nor  his  written  transcript,  and  he  read  the  newspapers  as  others  would  read  it, 
but  with  more  care,  from  this  degree  of  curiosity  which  he  had.  If  the  true, 
character  of  a  production  of  this  kind,  as  imputed  to  its  author,  is  to  be  regarded 
as  important,  we  insist  that  this  kind  of  evidence  concerning  a  newsjjaper  report 
of  it  is  not  admissible. 

Mr.  Manager  I^utlkr.  ]\Ir  President,  if  I  understand  there  is  no  question  of 
degree  of  evidence.  We  must  take  tiie  business  of  the  world  as  we  find  it,  and 
must  not  burrow  ourselves  and  insist  that  we  have  awakened  to  matters  as  they 
were  a  hundred  years  ago.     The  art  of  stenography  and  stenographic  writing 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  287 

and  phonogi'apliy  has  progressed  to  a  point  which  makes  us  rely  upon  it  in 
all  .the  bnsiucss  of  life.  There  is  not  a  gentleman  of  this  Senate  Avho  does  not 
rely  upon  it  every  day.  There  is  not  more  than  one  member  of  the  Senate 
who  in  this  trial  is  taking  notes  of  the  evidence.  AVhy  ?  Because  you  rely 
upon  the  busy  fingers  of  the  reporter  Avho  sits  by  my  side  to  give  you  a  tran- 
script of  it,  upon  which  you  must  judge.  Therefore,  in  every  business  of  life, 
ay,  in  the  very  business  of  this  court,  we  rely  upon  stenography. 

Now,  this  gentleman  says  that  he  made  a  stenographic  report  of  that  speech  ; 
that  that  was  jointly  made  up  by  himself,  Mr.  Sheridan,  and  Mr.  Smith  ;  that 
his  employer,  not  being  satisfied  with  that  joint  report,  which  was  the  Presi- 
dent's utterance  distilled  through  the  alembic  of  Colonel  Moore's  critical  dis- 
crimination, he  drew  out  with  care  an  exact  literal  transcript  under  the  chiding 
of  his  employer,  and  for  a  given  purpose  ;  and  that  the  next  day,  having  curi- 
osity to  see  what  would  be  the  difference,  and  how  the  President  of  the  United 
States  would  appear  if  put  to  paper  literally,  he  examined  that  speech-  in  the 
Chronicle,  and  then  Avith  the  matter  fresli  in  his  mind,  only  a  few  hours  inter- 
vening, with  his  attention  freshly  called  to  it,  he  said  then  he  knew  that  that 
was  a  correct  copy  ;  that  that  Avas  the  correct  speech. 

Now,  the  learned  counsel  say  the  manuscript  is  the  better  evidence.  If  there 
was  any  evidence  that  that  manuscript  had  been  preserved  perhaps  we  might 
be  called  upon  to  produce  it  in  some  technicality  of  criticism  of  law  as  adminis- 
tered in  a  very  technical  manner.  But  who  doesdiot  know  the  ordinary  course 
of  business,  and,  if  that  is  to  be  disputed,  I  will  ask  the  witness  ;  who  does 
not  know  that  the  ordinary  course  of  business  in  a  newspaper  office,  after  such 
manuscripts  are  got  through  with,  is  to  throw  them  into  the  waste-paper  basket ; 
they  are  not  preserved.  Therefore  I  act  upon  the  usual  and  ordinary  and 
common  understanding  of  the  business  of  life  as  all  courts  must  act  upon  it. 

Then  this  is  a  question  for  the  witness,  and  he  testifies.  The  question  that 
was  objected  to,  the  one  Ave  are  discussing,  is,  looking  at  that  report,  from  your 
knowledge  of  the  report,  having  twice  written  it  out,  portions  of  it  certainly, 
and  from  having  seen  it  the  next  morning,  with  your  cariosity  awakened,  can 
you  tell  the  Senate  whether  that  is  a  correct  report  1  Thereupon  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  President  gets  up  and  says  he  cannot.  How  does  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  President  know  that  ?  How  does  he  know  that  Mr.  Clephaneis 
not  one  of  those  gentlemen  who,  in  his  profession,  having  once  read  a  speech, 
can  repeat  it  the  next  day  ? 

The  difficulty  is  that  I  do  not  see  how  the  objection  arises.  The  question  I 
put  to  the  witness  is  a  plain  one  :  "  Sir,  there  is  what  I  say  is  a  copy  of  that 
speech,  is  a  transcript  of  that  speech;  from  your  knowledge,  having  heard  it, 
having  written  it  down  in  short-hand,  having  written  it  once  lor  correction  by 
the  President's  private  secretary,  and  then  having  rewritten  it  again  from  your 
notes  for  publication  in  the  Chronicle,  and  then  having-  examined  it  immediately 
after  publication — from  all  these  sources  of  knowledge  can  you  say  that  that  is 
a  correct  copy]"  Thereupon  the  counsel  for  the  President  says  you  cannot. 
How  does  he  know  that  the  witness  cannot  repeat  every  word  of  it  1 

The  difficulty  is  the  objection  does  not  apply;  and  I  should  have  contented 
myself  with  this  statement  except  that,  once  for  all,  I  propose  to  put  before  the 
Senate,  so  as  not  ever  to  have  to  argue  it  again  in  the  course  of  putting  in  this 
class  of  testimony,  the  argument  as  to  stenograpliic  reporting.  Now,  allow  mei 
to  state,  once  for  all,  two  authorities  upon  this  point,  because  I  am  not  going  to 
take  the  time  of  the  Senate  with  arguing  these  questions  hereafter,  for  b_y  doing 
so  I  should  play  into  the  hands  of  this  delay  which  has  been  so  often  attempted 
here.  In  O'Connell's  case,  to  prove  his  speeches  on  that  great  trial,  the  news- 
papers were  introduced;  and  no  trial  was  ever  fought  with  more  sharpness  or 
bitterness — newspapers  were  introduced  containing  Mr.  O'Connell's  speeches, 
or  what  purported  to  be  his  speeches,  and  the  only  proof  adduced  was  that  they 


288  LMPEACIIMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

had  been  properly  stamped  and  issued  from  the  office,  and  the  court  held  that 
Mr  O'Connell,  allowing  those  speeches  to  go  out  without  contradiction  for 
months,  mu.<t  be  held  responsible  for  them  to  the  public 

In  the  trial  of  James  Watson,  for  high  treason,  reported  in  32  State  Trials, 
this  question  arose,  and  the  question  was  whether  a  copy  might  be  used,  that 
copy  made  even  of  partially  obliterated  short-haud  notes. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  (to  Mr.  Bowling.)  You  state  that  you  took  in  short-hand  the  address 
of  Mr.  Watsou  to  the  people  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  your  short-hand  notes  here? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Be  so  good  as  to  read  to  my  lords  and  the  jury  what  it  was  ho  said. 

Mr.  IVttherell.  Pray,  Mr.  Short-hand  Writer,  when  did  you  take  that  note  ? 

A.  I  took  it  on  the  2d  of  December,  in  Sputields. 

Q.  When  did  you  copy  it  out  ? 

A.  I  copied  it  out  the  same  evening. 

Q.  Is  that  the  copy  you  made  that  evening  ? 

A.  No  ;  it  is  not.  This  is  the  short-hand  note  I  took,  and  this  is  a  literal  copy.  The 
short-hand  note  I  took  with  a  pencil,  and  in  the  crowd,  and,  perhaps,  having  been  taken 
six  months  back,  it  may  be  somewhat  defaced  ;  but  I  can  road  the  short-hand  note  with  a 
little  ditBculty,  though  certainly  I  could  read  the  transcript  with  more  ease.  I  will  read  the 
short-haud  note  if  it  is  wished. 

Mr.  Justice  Abbutt.  You  made  that  transcript  the  same  evening?  ' 

A.  I  made  this  transcript  yesterday.     I  made  another  transcript  the  same  evening. 

And  he  was  allowed  to  read  his  transcript.  While  this  authority  is  not 
exactly  to  the  point  of  difference  raised  here,  I  say  I  put  it  once  for  all  upon 
the  question,  because  I  have  heard  a  cross-examination  as  to  the  merits  of  Pit- 
man's system  of  short-hand  writing  as  if  we  were  to  have  it  put  in  controversy 
here,  that  the  whole  system  of  stenography  was  an  unavailable  means  of  fur- 
nishing information.  Therefore  my  present  proposition  is  the  right  to  put  this 
question  :  Mr.  Witness,  looking  at  that,  can  you  tell  me  whether  that  is  a  cor- 
rect transcript  of  the  speech  made  by  the  President  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  learned  manager  is  quite  correct  in  saying  that  I  do  mot 
know  but  that  this  witness  can  repeat  from  memory  the  President's  speech  ; 
and  whenever  he  offers  him  as  a  witness  so  to  do  I  will  not  object.  It  is 
entirely  competent  for  a  person  Avho  has  heard  a  speech  to  repeat  it  under  oath, 
he  asserting  that  he  remembers  it  and  can  do  so,  and  whenever  Mr.  Clephane 
undertakes  that  feat  it  is  within  the  competency  of  evidence.  What  success  he 
will  have  in  it  we  shall  determine  when  that  experiment  has  been  tried.  That 
method  of  evidence  from  this  witness  is  not  attempted,  but  another  form  of 
trustworthy  evidence  is  sought  to  be  made  competent ;  that  is,  that  by  his  notes, 
and  through  his  transcript  of  those  notes,  he  is  able  to  present,  under  his  pres- 
ent oath  and  belief  in  his  accuracy  and  competency  as  a  reporter,  this  form  of 
evidence.  Whenever  that  is  attempted  we  shall  make  no  objection  to  that  as 
trustworthy. 

But  when  the  managers  seek  to  avoid  responsibility  and  accuracy  through 
the  oath  of  the  witness  applied  in  either  form,  and  seek  to  put  it,  neither  upon 
present  memory  nor  upon  his  own  memoranda,  but  upon  the  accuracy  with 
which  he  has  followed  or  detected  inaccuracies  in  a  newspaper  report  made  the 
subsequent  day,  and  thereupon  to  give  credit  and  authenticity  to  the  newspaper 
report  upon  his  wholesale  and  general  approval  of  it,  then  we  must  contend  that 
the  sacred  right  of  freedom  of  speech  is  sought  to  be  invaded  by  overthrowing 
certainly  one  of  the  res})onsible  and  important  protections  of  it;  and  that  the 
rule  requiring  the  oath  of  somebody  who  heard  and  can  remember,  or,  accord- 
ing' to  the  rules  of  evidence,  preserved  the  aids  and  assistances  by  which  ho 
presently  in  tlie  court  of  justice  may  speak,  should  be  adhered  to.  And  we  arc 
not  to  be.  told  that  it  is  technical  to  maintain  in  defence  of  what  has  been  regard- 
ed as  one  of  the  commonest  and  surest  rights  in  any  free  country,  freedom  of 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE  PRESIDENT.  289 

speech,  that  whenever  it  is  rlrawn  in  question  it  shall  be  drawn  in  question  upon 
the  surest  and  most  faithful  evidences. 

The  learned  manager  has  said  that  you  are  familiar,  as  a  part  of  the  daily 
routine  of  your  congressional  duties,  with  the  habit  of  stenographic  reporting 
and  reproduction  in  the  newspapers,  and  that  you  rely  on  it  habitually  ;  and  I 
may  add  rely  on  it  habitually  to  be  habitually  misled.  Correction  is  the  first 
demand  of  every  public  speaker — Qorrection  and  revision,  in  order  that  this 
apparatus,  depending  upon  the  ear  and  the  sudden  strokes  of  the  ready  writer, 
may  not  be  the  firm  judgment  against  him  of  what  was  said  by  him.  Now, 
when  sedulously  this  newspaper  has  undertaken  that  no  such  considerations  of 
accuracy  shall  be  afforded  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  respect  of 
this  speech  to  be  spread  before  the  country,  but  that  express  orders  sluxll  be 
given  that  it  shall  be  reported  with  all  its  imperfections 

Mr.  Manager  Butlfr.  I  pray  correction,  sir.  I  have  not  sedulously  done 
that ;  but  offer  it  that  the  speech  of  the  President's  private  secretary  should 
not  go  before  the  country. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  instructions  of  the  editor  were  that  it  should  be  reported 
"  with  all  its  imperfections"  as  caught  by  the  short-hand  writer,  without  the 
opportunity  of  that  revision  which  every  public  speaker  at  the  hustings  or  in 
the  halls  of  debate  demands  as  a  primary  and  important  right.  Whenever, 
therefore,  Mr.  Clephane  shall  rise  and  speak  from  memory  the  speech  of  the 
President  here,  swearing  to  its  accuracy,  or  whenever  he  shall  produce  his  notes 
and  their  transcript  as  in  Watson's  case,  some  foundation  for  the  proof  of  the 
speech  will  have  been  laid. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stand  down,  Mr.  Clephane,  for  a  moment.  I  will 
offer  this  directly.     Now  I  will  call  j\[r.  Tinker. 

Charles  A.  T'.nker  recalled  : 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  witness  states  that  he  desires  to  make  an  explana- 
tion.    He  will  make  it. 

The  Witness.  Yesterday  when  called  upon  the  stand  I  w'as  attending  to  my 
duties  in  charge  of  the  telegraph  office  in  the  gallery  ;  I  had  not  a  moment's 
notice  that  I  was  to  be  called.  I  then  telegraphed  to  my  office  for  the  docu- 
ments contained  in  packages  that  were  there,  which  I  had  been  previously  ex- 
amined about  before  the  managers.  These  documents  were  brought  to  me  by  a 
boy  from  the  office,  and  I  put  them  upon  the  stand.  Last  night  when  taken 
from  the  stand  I  deposited  them  in  the  office  of  the  Sergeaut-at-arms,  and  this 
morning  brought  one  of  these  packages  upon  the  stand,  and  I  opened  it  here, 
supposing  it  to  be  the  one  on  which  I  was  to  be  examined.  As  1  saw  that  the 
reporters  were  in  trouble  about  it,  I  thought  I  had  made  a  mistake,  and  I  con- 
sequently went  to  my  office  after  Mr.  Clephane  came  upon  the  stand,  and  I  have 
now  the  speech  of  the  President  telegraphed  by  the  agent  of  the  Associated 
Press  on  the  ISth  of  August,  1866. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Tinker,  what  document  was  that  General  Butler  handed 
you] 

Answer.  This  is  one  of  the  documents. 

Mr.  Stanbery.   Is  that  the  speech  of  the  18th  of  August  at  all  ? 

Answer.  This  is  not  the  speech  of  the  18th  of  August. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  the  22d  of  February  speech,  is  it  ?     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  No  matter  what  it  is. 

The  Witness.  I  have  not  looked  to  see  what  this  is. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  will  find  out  what  that  document  is  in  good  time. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  You  had  better  put  it  in  "in  good  time." 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  Avas  simply  a  mistake.     (To  the  witness.)    Now 
give  me  the  document  I  asked  for. 
19  I  P 


290  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  WiTNEs:s.  Yes,  sir.  (Producing  a  roll  of  manuscript.) 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Is  this  the  document  you  supposed  you  were  testifying  about  before  ? 

A.  This  is. 

Q.  Do  you  give  the  same  testimony  about  that  that  you  did 

Mr.  Ci'RTis  and  Mr.  Stanbery.  That  will  not  do.  Let  us  have  his  testi- 
mony about  this. 

Mr.  Manager  Bl'TLER.  Well,  sir,  we  will  give  all  the  delay  possible.  (To  the 
witness.)  Now,  sir,  will  you  tell  us  whether  that  was  sent  through  the  Associ- 
ated Press  ] 

A.  It  bears  the  marks  of  having  been  sent,  and  is  filed  with  their  despatches 
of  that  date. 

Q.  From  the  course  of  business  of  your  office,  have  you  any  doubt  that  it 
was  so  sent  1 

A.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Curtis.  TVe  object  to  that.  If  the  witness  can  say  it  was  sent  from  any 
knowledge  he  has,  of  course  he  will  say  so.     He  cannot  reason  on  facts. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  After  that  speech  was  sent,  if  it  was, 
did  you  see  it  published  in  the  Associated  Press  reports  1 

A.  I  cannot  state  positively;   I  think  I  did. 

Q,.  Was  that  brought  to  your  office  for  the  purpose  of  being  transmitted, 
whether  it  was  or  not  ? 

A.  I  did  not  personally  receive  it  ;  but  it  is  in  the  despatches  of  the  Asso- 
ciated Press  sent  on  that  day. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  all  at  present.  Now  we  will  recall  Mr.  Sher- 
idan. 

Jamks  B.  Sheridan  recalled. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  (Handing  to  the  witness  the  manuscript  last  produced  by  Mr. 
Tinker.)  Now,  examine  that  manuscript  and  see  whether  you  find  any  of  your 
handwriting  in  it. 

Answer,  (having  examined  the  manuscript.)  I  see  my  writing  here. 

Q.   What  is  it  you  have  there  ? 

A.  I  have  a  report  of  the  speech  made  by  the  President  on  the  18th  of 
August. 

Q.   In  what  year? 

A.  1866. 

Q,  Have  you  ever  seen  Mr.  Moore  write  ? 

A.  A  good  many  years  ago,  when  he  was  reporter  for  the  Intelligencer  and 
I  reported,  for  the  Washington  Union,  and  we  had  seats  together. 

Q.  He  was  a  reporter  for  the  Intelligencer,  was  he  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  there  any  corrections  made  in  that  report  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  ])o  you  .-oe  any  corrections  there  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  the  manuscript  which  was  prepared  in  the  President's  office  1 

A.  I  think  it  is;   I  am  i)retty  certain  it  is. 

Q.  Have  you  any  douljt  in  your  mind  ? 

A.  Not  the  least. 

Q.  Was  the  President  there  to  correct  it  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  he  did  not  exercise  that  great  right  of  revision  there,  did  he,  to  your 
knowledge  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  291 

A.  I  did  not  see  the  President  after  lie  left  the  East  Room. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Colonel  Moore  took  any  memoranda  of  that  speech  1 

A.  I  do  not.  There  Avas  quite  a  crowd  there.  1  had  no  opportunity  of 
observing;. 

Q.  Will  you  pick  out  and  lay  aside  the  portions  that  are  in  your  handwriting  ? 

(The  witness  proceeded  to  do  so.) 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  give  you  time  to  do  that  in  a  moment.  (To 
the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)     Anything  further  with  this  witness  1 

No  response. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  know  all  that  are  in  your  handwriting] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

(Selecting  certain  sheets  and  handing  them  to  Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.) 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  will  now  put  a  few  questions. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  You  have  selected  the  pages  that  are  in  your  handwriting  and  have  them 
before  you.     How  large  a  proportion  do  they  make  of  the  whole  maunscript  ? 

A.  I  can  haixlly  tell.     I  have  not  examined  the  rest. 

Q.  Well,  no  matter ;  was  this  whole  manuscript  made  as  a  transcript  from 
your  notes  1 

A.  This  part  that  I  wrote  out. 

Q.  Was  the  whole  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  whole  was  not  made  from  your  notes  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Clephane  wrote  his  part  from  his  notes,  and  Mr.  Smith  from 
his. 

Q.  Then  it  is  only  the  part  that  you  now  hold  in  your  hands  that  was  pro- 
duced from  the  original  stenographic  notes  that  you  have  brought  in  evidence 
here  ? 

A.  That  is  all. 

Q.  Did  you  write  it  out  yourself  from  your  stenographic  notes,  following  the 
latter  with  your  eye,  or  were  your  notes  read  to  you. by  another  person  ? 

A.  I  wrote  out  from  my  own  notes,  reading  my  notes  as  I  wrote. 

Q.  Have  you  made  any  subsequent  comparison  of  the  manuscript  now  in 
your  hands  with  your  stenographic  notes  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  When  was  this  completed  on  your  part  ? 

A.  Avery  few  minutes  after  the  speech  was  delivered. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  do  with  the  manuscript  after  you  had  completed  it  ? 

A.  1  hardly  know.  I  sat  at  the  table  there  writing  it  out,  and  I  think  Mr. 
Smith  took  it  as  1  wrote  out ;   1  am  not  certain  about  that. 

Q,.  That  ended  your  connection  with  it  ? 

A.  That  ended  my  connection  with  it.     I  left  for  New  York  the  same  night. 

Q.  I  desire  that  yon  should  leave  your  original  stenographic  notes  as  a  part 
of  the  case  subject  to  our  disposal  ? 

A.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Put  your  initials  upon  these  papers. 

The  Witness.  1  will  do  so. 

(The  notes  were  marked  "  J.  B.  S.") 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  One  of  my  associates  desires  me  to  put  this  question 
which  1  suppose  you  have  answered  before  :  whether  that  manuscript  which 
you  have  produced  in  your  handwriting  was  a  true  manuscript  of  your  notes  ot 
that  speech  1 

A.  It  was.     I  will  not  say  it  was  written  out  exactly  as  it  was  spoken. 

Q.  What  is  the  change,  if  any  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  there  were  any  changes,  but  frequently  in  writing  out 


292  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

we  exprci.-ie  a  little  judgment.      "VVe  do  not  ahvays  write  out  a  speech  just  as  it 
is  delivered. 

Q.  Is  tliat  substantially  a  true  version  of  what  the  President  said  ? 

A.  It  is  undoubtedly. 

Francis  H.  S.mith  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Question.  Are  you  the  official  reporter  of  the  House  of  Representatives  1 
Answer.  I  am,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  so  engaged  ] 

A.   In  the  position  I  now  hold  since  the  5th  of  January,    1865. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  business  of  reporting  ] 
A.  For  something  over  eighteen  years 

Q.  Were  you  employed,  and  if  so  by  whom,  to  makp  a  report   of  the  Pres- 
ident's speech  in  August,  1866  ? 

A.  I  was  employed  at  the  instance  of  one  of  the  agents  of  the  Associated 
Press  at  "Washington. 

Q.  Who  aided  in  this  report  1 

A.  Mr.  James  0.  Clephane  and  Mr.  J;imes  B.  Sheridan. 
Q.  Did  you  make  such  report  ? 
■     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  got  your  short-hand  notes  ? 
A.  I  have. 
Q.  Here? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Produce  them. 

A.  I  will  do  so,  (producing  a  note-book.) 

Q.  After  you  had  made  your  short-hand  report,  what  did  you  do  then  1 
A.  In  company  with  Mr.  Clephane  and  Mr.  Sheridan,  I  retired  to  one  of  the 
offices  of  the  Executive  Mansion  and  wrote  out  a  portion  of  my  notes. 
Q.  What  did  the  others  do  ? 

A.  The  others  wrote  out  portions  of  the  same  speech. 
Q.  What  was  done  with  the  portion  that  you  wrote  1 

A.  It  was  delivered  to  Colonel  Moore,  private  secretary  of  the  President, 
sheet  by  sheet  as  written  by  me,  for  revision. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  deliver  it  to  Colonel  Moore  1 
A.  1  did  it  at  his  request. 
Q.  What  did  he  do  with   it  1 
A.  He  read  it  over  and  made  certain  alterations. 
Q.  AVas  the  President  present  while  that  was  being  done  ? 
A.  He  was  not. 

Q.  Had  Coloni  1  Moore  taken  any  memoranda  of  the  speech,  to  your  know- 
ledge 1 

A.  I  am  not  aware  whether  he  had  or  not. 

Q,.  Did  Colonel  Moore  show  you  any  means  by  which  he  knew  what  the 
President  meant  to  say,  so  that  he  could  correct  the  speech  ? 

A  He  did  not.  He  stated  to  me  prior  to  the  delivery  of  the  speech  that  he 
desired  permission  to  revise  the  manuscript,  simply  to  correct  the  phraseology, 
not  to  make  any  change  in  any  substantial  matter. 

Q.  (Handing  to  the  witness  the  manuscript  last  produced  by  C.  A.  Tinker.) 
Will  you  look  and  see  whether  you  can  liud  any  portion  of  the  manuscript 
that  you  wrote  out  there  ? 

A.  1  recognize  some  portion  of  it. 

Q.  Separate  it  as  quickly  as  you  can. 

(The  witness  separated  the  sheets  written  by  him.) 

A.  I  find  what  I  wrote  in  two  diflferent  portions  of  the  speech. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  293 

Q.  Have  you  now  got  the  portions,  occurring,  you  say,  in  two  different  por- 
tions of  the  speech,  which  you  wrote  out  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Are  there  any  corrections  on  that  manuscript  ? 

A.  There  are  quite  a  number. 

Q.  In  whose  handwriting,  ff  you  know  ? 

A.   In  the  lumdwriting  of  Colonel  Moore,  so  far  as  I  see. 

Q.  Have  you  written  out  from  your  notes  since  the  speech  1 

A.  1  have. 

Q.  (Handing  a  manuscript  to  the  witness  )  Is  that  it  ?  • 

A.   It  is. 

Q.  Is  that  speech,  as  written  out  by  you,  a  correct  transcript  of  your  notes  1 

A.  (Having  examined  the  manuscript.)  It  is,  with  the  exception  of  two 
important  corrections,  which  I  handed  to  the  committee  a  day  or  two  afterward. 
I  do  not  see  them  here. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  they  were  1 

A.  In  the  sentence  "  I  could  express  more  by  remaining  silent  and  letting 
silence  speak  what  I  should  and  what  I  ought  to  say,"  I  think  the  correction 
was  "  and  letting  silence  speak  and  you  infer,"  the  words  ''  you  infer"  having 
been  accidentally  omitted.  The  other  I  do  not  see  ;  it  is  the  insertion  of  the 
word  "  overruling  "  before  the  words  "  unerring  Providence." 
Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  Is  the  last  paper  that  has  been  shown  you  a  transcript  of  the  whole  speech  ? 

A.  Of  the  eulire  speech. 

Q.  And  from  your  notes  exclusively  ? 

A.  From  my  notes  exclusively. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  that  the  transcript  that  you  made  at  the  Executive 
Mansion  from  your  notes  was  correctly  made  ? 

A.  I  have  no  doubt  the  transcript  I  made  from  my  notes  at  the  Executive 
Mansion  was  substantially  correctly  made.  I  remember  that,  having  learned 
that  the  manuscript  was  to  be  revised,  I  took  the  liberty  of  making  certain  revi- 
sion myself  as  I  went  along,  correcting  uugrammatical  expressions  and  chang- 
ing the  order  of  words  in  sentences  in  certain  instances — corrections  of  that  sort. 

Q.  Those  two  liberties,  then,  you  took  in  writing  out  your  own  notes  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  made  any  examination  to  see  what  changes  you  thus  made] 
.    A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  now  point  them  out  ? 

A.  I  cannot  now  point  them  out, 

Q.  You  have  made  a  more  recent  transcript  from  your  notes  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  allow  yourself  the  same  liberties  in  that  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  That,  then,  you  consider  a  transcript  of  the  notes  as  they  are  1 

A.  A  literal  transcript  of  the  notes  as  ihey  are,  and  as  they  were  taken. 

Q.  Do  you  report  by  the  same  system  of  sound,  phonography,  as  it  is  called, 
that  was  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Sheridan  ? 

A.  I  hardly  know  what  system  I  do  report  by.  I  studied  shorthand  when 
I  was  a  boy  going  to  school,  a  system  of  phonography  as  then  published  by 
Andrews  &;  Boyle,  which  I  have  used  for  my  own  purposes  since  then,  and 
made  various  changes  from  year  to  year. 

Q.   Can  you  phonographic  reporters  write  out  from'  one  another's  notes  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  any  one  could  write  out  my  notes  except  myself. 

Q.  Can  you  write  out  anybody  else's  ? 

A.  Probably  not*  unless  written  with  a  very  great  degree  of  accuracy  and  care. 


294  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

James  0.  Clephane  recalled. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  (Handing  to  the  witness  a  part  of  the  manuscript  last  produced  by  C.  A. 
Tinker.)  You  have  already  told  us  that  you  took  the  speech  and  wrote  it  out. 
Is  what  I  now  hand  you  the  manuscript  of  your  writing  out  r" 

A.  It  is. 

(^.  Has  it  any  corrections  upon  it  1 

A.  It  has  quite  a  number. 

Q.  Who  made  those? 

A.  I  presume  they  were  made  by  Colonel  Moore.  He  took  the  manuscript 
as  I  wrote  it.  I  cannot  testify  positively  as  regards  his  handwriting.  I  am 
not  sufficiently  familiar  with  it. 

Q  Was  that  manuscript  as  you  wrote  it  a  correct  copy  of  the  speech  as 
made? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  adhered  as  closely  to  the  notes  in  preparing  this 
report  as  I  did  in  regard  to  the  Chronicle. 

Q.  Was  ii  substantially  accurate  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Did  you  in  any  case  change  the  sense  ? 

A.  Not  at  all,  sir;  merely  the  form  of  expression. 

Q.  And  the  form  of  expression,  why  ? 

A.  Oftentimes  it  tended  to  obscure  the  meaning,  and  for  that  reason  it  was 
changed  ;  or  the  sentence,  perhaps,  Avas  an  awkward  one,  and  ^t  was  changed 
to  make  it  more  readable. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts: 

Q.  What  rules  of  change  did  you  prescribe  to  yourself  in  the  deviations  you 
made  from  your  phonographic  notes  ? 

A.  As  I  have  said,  I  merely  changed  the  form  of  expression  in  order,  per- 
haps, to  make  the  meaning  more  intelligible  or  the  sentence  less  awkward. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  when  the  meaning  did  not  present  itself  to  you  as  it 
should,  you  made  it  clearer,  did  you  ? 

A.  I  will  state,  sir,  Mr.  Johnson  is  in  the  habit  of  using  quite  often 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  you  about  Mr.  Johnson.  What  I  .asked  you  was  this  : 
When  the  meaning  did  not  present  itself  to  you  as  it  should,  you  made  it 
clearer  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  T  in  any  case  altered  the  meaning. 

Q.  But  you  made  the  meaning  clearer? 

A.  I  endeavored  to  do  so. 

Q.  And  you  did,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  whetlicr  I  succeeded  or  not. 

Q.  That  was  one  rule  ;  what  other  rule  of  change  did  you  allow  yourself? 

A.  No  other. 

Q.  No  grammatical  improvement? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  may  say,  if  you  will  allow  me,  that  very  often  the  singalar 
verb  was  used  where  perhaps  the  plural  ought  to  be. 

Q.  You  corrected,  then,  the  grammar  if 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  in  some  instances. 

Q.  Can  you  suggest  any  other  rule  of  change  ? 

A.  I  cannot  at  the  jjresent  time. 

William  ft.  Moore  sworn  and  examin(*d. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Bitler  : 
Q.  What  is  your  rank? 
A.  1  am  a  paymaster  in  the  army  with  the  rank  of  major. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  295 

Q.  "When  were  you  appointed  ? 

A.  On  the  14th  day  of  November,  1866. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  pay  anybody. 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  with  government  funds.     [Laughter.] 

Q.  What  has  been  your  duty  ? 

A.  I  have  been  on  duty  at  the  Executive  Mant?ion. 

Q.  What  kind  of  duty  ? 

A.  I  have  been  acting  in  the  capacity  of  secretary  to  the  President. 

Q    Were  you  so  acting  before  you  were  appointed  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  acted  as  secretary  before  you  were  appointed  major  1 

A.  I  was  directed  to  report  to  the  President  in  person  in  the  mouth  of  Novem- 
ber, 1S65. 

Q.  Had  you  been  in  the  army  prior  to  that  time  ? 

A.  I  had  been  a.  major  and  assistant  adjutant  general. 

Q.  In  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  President's  speech  of  the  18th  of  August,  1866  ? 

A.  1  did. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  notes  of  it  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

(Placing  the  manuscript  last  produced  by  Mr.  C.  A.  Tinker  before  the  witness.) 

Q.  Look  at  the  manuscript  which  lies  before  you  and  see  whether  you  cor- 
rected it.  (The  witness  proceeded  to  examine  the  manuscript.)  I  do  not  care 
whether  you  corrected  it  all ;  did  you  correct  any  portion  of  it  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  the  corrections  made  ? 

A.  In  an  apartment  in  the  Executive  Mansion. 

Q.  Who  was  in  the  apartment  when  you  made  the  corrections  ? 

A.  Messrs.  Francis  H.  Smith,  James  B.  Sheridan,  James  0.  Clephane,  and, 
I  think,  Mr.  Holland,  of  the  Associated  Press. 

Q.  Had  you  any  memorandum  from  the  President  by  which  to  correct  it  1 

A.  None,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  claim  to  have  the  power  of  remembering,  on  hearing  a  speech, 
what  a  man  says  ? 

A.  I  do  not,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  President,  on  that  occasion,  had  been  exercising 
his  great  constitutional  right  of  freedom  of  speech  ? 

The  Witness.  Will  you  repeat  that  question,  if  you  please? 

Q  Did  you  not  know  that  on  that  occasion  the  President  had  been  exercis- 
ing his  great  constitutional  right  of  freedom  of  speech  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  puts  a  question  of  law  to  the  witness,  and  I  do  not  think 
it  is  admissible. 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  I  am  not  asking  a  question  of  law,  but  a  question  of 
fact.     (To  the  witness  :)  Did  you  not  so  understand  it  ? 

A.  I  so  understood  it,  sir. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Then  we  are  to  understand  the  fact  that  it  was  constitutional 
to  exercise  freedom  of  speech  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  In  the  idea  of  the  President  and  this  witness,  he  thinks 
it  is  constitutional  to  exercise  it  in  this  way.  It  may  be  constitutional,  but  I 
think  not  decent. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  That  is  a  matter  of  taste. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  Now,  then,  sir,  how  dare  you  correct  the  President's  great  constitutional 
right  of  freedom  of  speech  without  any  memorandum  to  do  it  by  1 
A.  It  was  an  authority  I  assumed. 


296  ■       IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  assume  the  authority  to  exercise  this  great  constitutional 
right  for  the  President  ? 

A.  Well,  that  is  a  difficult  question  to  answer. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  ought  to  be  a  difficult  one  to  ask. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Why  should  you  assume  the  authority  to  correct  his  speech  ? 

A.  My  object  was,  as  the  speech  was  an  extemporaneous  one,  simply  to 
change  the  language,  and  not  to  change  the  substance. 

Q.  Did  you  change  the  substance  anywhere  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Are  there  not  pages  there  where  your  corrections  are  the  most  of  it  1 

A.  I  am  not  aware  of  that  fact. 

Q.  Look  and  see  if  there  is  not  a  larger  number  of  corrections  on  some 
pages  ? 

A.  (After  examining  the  manuscript.)  In  the  hasty  examination  that  I  have 
made,  I  find  no  one  page — perhaps  there  may  be  a  single  exception — wliere  my 
writing  pi-edominates.  There  is  a  page  in  which  several  lines  are  erased  ;  but 
whethei  or  not  I  erased  them  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  anybody  else  that  had  anything  to  do  with  revising  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  do  that  revision  by  the  direction  of  the  President  ? 

A.  I  did  not,  sir,  so  far  as  I  can  recollect. 

Q.  He  did  not  direct  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Smith  then  and  there  that  you  did  it  by  the  direction 
of  the  President  1 

A.  Not  that  1  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  made  these  alterations  and  corrections  upon 
the  very  solemn  occasion  of  this  speech  without  any  authority  whatever  'I 

A.  That  is  my  impression. 

Q.  Alter  you  made  the  revision  did  you  show  it  to  the  President  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  him  that  you  had  taken  that  liberty  with  his  constitu- 
tional rights  1 

A.  I  cannot  recall  the  fact  that  I  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  manuscript  1 

A.  The  manuscript,  as  it  was  revised,  was  handed,  I  think,  to  the  agent  of 
the  Associated  Press,  who  despatched  it  from  the  office  in  order  that  it  might  be 
published  in  the  afternoon  papers. 

Q.  Was  it  published  in  the  papers  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  of  that  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  positively,  as  I  have  not  examined  the  papers.  That  was 
the  object. 

Q.  Was  the  speech — whether  correctly  or  not  I  do  not  ask — but  was  that 
speech,  purporting  to  come  from  the  President,  published  in  the  Associated  Presa 
despatches  I 

A.  I  do  not  know.  I  refer  more  to  the  city  papers  than  to  those  to  which 
the  Associated  Press  furnished  informatimi. 

Q.    Was  the  same  speech  publi.-^lied  in  the  Intelligencer? 

A.  The  speech  was  published  in  the  Intelligencer. 

Q    Is  that  newspaper  taken  at  the  Executive  Mansion? 

A.  It  is. 

Q.  Was  it  at  that  time  ? 

A.  It  was  at  tliat  time. 

Q.  Seen  by  the  President 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  297 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  presume  it  was. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  cliide  you,  or  t?ay  anytliing  to  you  that  you  had  done  wrong 
in  the  correction,  or  had  misrepresented  him  in  this  speech  at  all  ? 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Even  down  to  this  day  1 

A.  He  has  never  chided  or  rebuked  me  for  the  correction  of  a  speech. 

Q.  Has  he  ever  said  there  was  anything  wrong  about  it  'i 

A.  I  have  never  heard  him  say  so. 

No  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  now  propose,  with  your  Honor's  leave  and  the  Sen- 
ate's, to  read  the  speech  as  corrected  by  Colonel  Moore,  unless  that  is  objected 
to.  If  that  is  objected  to  I  propose  to  put  in  evidence  the  report  of  Mr.  Smith, 
the  Associated  Press  report,  and  the  report  of  the  Chronicle,  reading  one  only. 
You  are  aware,  sir,  that  the  President  complains  in  his  answer  that  we  do  not 
give  the  whole  speech.  We  have  now  brought  all  the  versions  that  we  can 
conveniently  of  his  whole  speech,  and  if  not  objected  to  we  will  put  them  all  in. 
Otherwise  I  will  only  put  in  the  extracts. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  What  version  do  you  now  offer? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  All,  hoping  to  get  the  truth  out  of  the  whole  of  them. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  speech  as  proved  now  by  the  witnesses  in  the  version 
which  passed  under  Colonel  Moore's  eye  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  think  I  must  ask  that  the  objection,  if  any  is  to  be 
taken  to  my  offer,  shall  be  put  in  writing. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Before  it  is  made  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  as  it  is  made. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Well,  the  speech  as  proved  in  Mr.  Smith's  and  Mr.  Sheridan's 
copy  we  regard  as  in  the  shape  of  evidence,  the  accuracy  of  the  report  to  be 
judged  of,  there  being  competent  evidence  on  the  subject.  The  speech  in  the 
Chronicle  we  do  not  understand  to  be  supported  by  any  such  evidence,  and  we 
shall  object  to  that  as  not  authentically  proved.  The  speech  in  the  Intelli- 
gencer, which  seems  to  have  been  supported  in  the  intent  of  the  honorable 
managers  by  proof  of  that  newspaper  being  taken  at  the  Executive  Mansion 
has  not  been  produced,  and  has  not  been  offered,  as  I  understand. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Therefore  we  dismiss  that.  The  Chronicle  speech,  then,  we 
consider  not  proved  by  authentic  evidence  submitted  to  the  court.  The  steno- 
graphic reports  in  the  two  forms  indicated  we  suppose  have  proof  to  support 
them,  which  is  competent,  and  enable  the  court  under  competent  evidence  to 
judge  of  their  accuracy,  their  accuracy  to  be  the  subject  of  remark,  of  course, 
as  the  cause  proceeds,  and  without  desiring  here  to  anticipate  the  discussion  as 
to  whether  any  evidence  concerning  them  (as  we  have  excepted  and  objected 
in  our  answer  to  the  tenth  and  eleventh  articles)  is  admissible.  Saving  that 
for  the  purpose  of  discussion  in  the  body  of  the  case,  we  make  no  other  objec- 
tion to  the  reading  of  the  speeches. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Do  you  want  the  whole  of  them  read  ?  We  are  con- 
tent with  one,  the  others  being  subject  to  be  used  by  either  party. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Whichever  version  you  put  in  evidence  we  wish  read. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  put  all  versions  in  evidence,  and  we  will  read  one. 

Mr.  Evarts.  We  should  like  to  have  the  one  read  that  you  rely  on. 

J\[r.  Tipton.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  move  that  we  now  take  a  recess  of  fifteen 
minutes. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  Before  that  motion  is  put  1  wish  to  put  it  in  the  form  of  an  adjourn- 
ment until  three  o'clock,  that  we  may  do  some  legislative  business.  ["  No,  no."J 
There  is  a  rule  that  ought  to  be  altered,  and  if  tlie  senator  from  Nebraska  will 
allow  me  I  will  move  that  the  court  adjourn  until  three  o'clock. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Illinois  proposes  that  the  court  adjourn 
until  three  o'clock. 


298  IMPEACHMEXT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  for? 

The  Chief  Justick.  The  senator  from  Illinois  will  state  the  object  of  the 
adjournment. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  think  the  honorable  member  did  state  the  purpose,  but  I 
did  not  hear  him. 

The  Chikf  JiiSTFCE.  The  senator  from  Illinois  states  that  he  desires  an 
adjournment  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up  a  rule  in  legislative  session.  You 
who  are  in  favor  of  adjourning  until  three  o'clock  will  say  aj ;  the  contrary 
opinion,  no. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  now  is  on  the  motion  of  the  senator  from 
Nebraska,  (Mr.  Tipton.) 

Mr.  Drake.  I  suggest  an  amendment  to  the  motion  of  the  senator  from 
Nebraska,  that  we  take  a  recess  for  20  minutes. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  will  put  the  question  on  the  longest  time 
first.     The  motion  is  to  take  a  i-ecess  for  20  minutes. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  now  recurs  on  the  motion  of  the  senator 
from  Nebraska,  to  take  a  recess  for  15  minutes. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ;  and  at  the  expiration  of  15  minutes  the  Chief 
Justice  resumed  the  chair,  and  called  the  Senate  to  order  at  two  o'clock  and 
45  minutes  p.  m. 

j\Ir.  Grimes.  I  move  that  this  court  stand  adjourned  until  Monday  at  12 
o'clock. 

Mr.  Conness.  I  hope  not. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  that  motion. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  moved  that  the  Senate  adjourn  until  Monday  at 
12  o'clock,  and  on  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  are  demanded. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  not  ordered. 

Mr.  Drake.  The  rule  requires  us  to  sit  every  day. 

Mr.  Johnson.  No,  it  does  not.     It  is  "unless  otherwise  ordered." 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Sumner.  The  yeas  and  nays  have  been  called  for. 

The  Chief  Justice.  There  was  not  a  sufficient  number  rising  to  demand  the 
yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  not  ordered. 

Mr.  Sumner.  Then  there  wasa  misapprehension,  if  the  Chair  will  pardon  me. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  put  the  question  again  on  order- 
ing the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  19,  nays  28, 
as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Buckalew,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Hender- 
son, Hendricks,  .Tolnison.  McCreery,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ramsey,  .Saulsbury, 
Truiiihiill,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Wilson — IS). 

Nay.>< — Me.ssrs.  Anthony,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conklinp^,  Conness,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Ediniuids,  Ferry,  Freliiighuy.'<cii,  Howard,  Howe,  Alorgan,  Morrill  of  Elaine,  Morrill 
of  Vermont,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ross,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Sumner, 
Thayer,  Tipton,  Wiliey,  and  Williams — '28. 

Not  voTlNti — Me.ssrs.  Bayard,  Doolittle,  Harlan,  Morton,  Sherman,  Wade,  and  Yates — 7. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLER.  I  now  offer  the  version  of  the  speech  sworn  to  by 
Mr.  Smith : 

Speech  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  August  18,  1866. 

The  President  said : 

Mr.  Chairman,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee:  Languaf^e  is  inadequate  to  express  the 
emotions  and  feelings  of  this  occasion ;  and  perhaps  I  could  express  more  by  remaiuing 
sileut  aud  letting  silence  speak  wliat  I  would  and  what  I  ought  to  say.    I  confess,  though, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  299 

having  had  some  experience  in  public  life,  having  been  before  many  public  audiences — I 
confess  the  present  occasion  and  audience  is  well  calculated,  and  not  only  well  calculated,  but 
has  in  fact,  partially  overwhelmed  me.  I  have  not  language  to  express,  or  to  convey,  as  I 
have  said,  in  an  adequate  manner,  the  feelings  and  emotions  produced  by  the  present  occa- 
sion. In  listening  to  the  address  that  your  distinguished  and  eloquent  chairman  has  just 
delivered,  the  proceedings  of  the  convention,  as  they  transpired,  recur  to  my  mind,  and  seem- 
ingly, that  I  partook  here  of  the  enthusiasm  which  seemed  to  prevail  there.  And  upon  the 
reception  of  the  despatch,  sent  by  two  distinguished  members  of  that  convention,  conveying 
in  terms  the  scenes  that  have  just  been  described,  of  South  Carolina  and  Massachusetts  arm 
in  arm,  marching  into  that  convention  giving  evidence  that  the  two  extremes  could  come  to- 
gether, that  they  could  peril  in  future,  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  as  they  had  in  the 
past,  when  tlie  accompanying  statement  that  in  that  vast  assembly  of  distinguished,  eloquent, 
and  intellectual  persons  that  were  there,  every  face  was  suft'used  with  tears — when  I  under- 
took to  read  the  despatch  to  one  associated  with  me  in  office,  I  could  not  give  utterance  to 
the  feelings  it  produced.     [Applause.] 

I  think  we  may  justly  conclude  we  are  moving  under  proper  inspirations;  I  think  I  can- 
not be  mistaken  that  an  unerring  Providence  is  in  this  matter.  The  nation  is  imperiled;  it 
has  just  passed  through  a  mighty,  bloody,  and  momentous  ordeal ;  and  while  we  have  passed 
through  that  we  do  not  find  ourselves  free  from  difficulties  and  dangers  that  surround  us. 
While  our  brave  men  have  performed  their  duties  in  the  field — officers  and  men — while  they 
have  won  laurels  that  are  imperishable,  there  are  still  greater  and  more  important  duties  yet 
to  perform;  and  while  we  have  had  their  co-operation  in  the  Held  we  want  their  support  out 
of  the  field  when  we  are  trying  to  bring  about  peace. 

Every  effort  has  been  made,  so  far  as  the  executive  department  of  the  government  was 
concerned,  to  restore  the  Union ;  to  heal  the  breach ;  to  pour  oil  into  the  wound  which  had  been 
inflicted,  and — to  speak  in  common  phrase — to  prepare,  as  the  learned  and  wise  physician 
would,  a  plaster  that  was  coextensive  with  the  wound,  and  that  was  healing  in  its  character. 
[Applause.] 

We  think,  or  thought,  we  had  partially  succeeded ;  but  as  the  work  progressed,  as  recon- 
ciliation seemed  to  be  restored  and  the  country  become  united,  we  found  a  disturbing  and 
marring  element  of  opposition  thrown  in;  and  in  making  any  allusion  to  that,  I  shall  make 
DO  more  allusion  than  has  been  in  the  convention  and  by  the  distinguished  gentleman  who 
has  placed  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  before  me — I  shall  make  no  more  allusion  than 
I  tliiuk  the  times  justify.  We  have  witnessed  in  one  department  of  the  government  every 
effort,  as  it  were,  to  prevent  the  restoration  of  peace,  harmony,  and  union ;  we  have  seen, 
as  it  were,  hanging  upon  the  verge  of  the  government,  as  it  were,  a  body,  calling  or  assuming 
to  be  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  when  it  was  but  a  Congress  of  a  part  of  the  States  ; 
we  have  seen  Congress  assuming  to  be  for  the  Union  when  every  step  they  took  was  to  per- 
petuate dissolution,  and  make  disruption  permanent.  We  have  seen  every  step  that  has 
been  taken,  instead  of  bringing  about  reconciliation  and  harmony,  has  been  legislation  that 
took  the  character  of  penalties,  retaliation,  and  revenge.  This  has  been  the  course ;  this  has 
been  the  policy  of  one  department  of  your  government.  The  humble  individual  who  has 
been  addressed  here  to-day,  and  now  stands  here  before  you,  has  been  occupying  another 
department  of  the  government.  The  manner  of  his  getting  there  I  sliall  not  allude  to  now — 
suffice  it  to  say,  I  was  there  by  the  Constitution  of  my  country,  [applause,]  and  being  there 
by  the  Constitution  of  my  country,  I  placed  my  foot  upon  the  Constitution  as  the  great  ram- 
part of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  [applause,]  having  been  taught  in  early  life,  and  having 
practiced  through  my  whole  career  to  venerate,  respect,  and  make  the  Constitution  of  my 
fathers  my  guide  through  my  public  life.     [Applause.] 

I  know  it  has  been  said,  and  I  must  be  permitted  to  indulge  in  this  line,  that  the  executive 
department  of  the  government  has  been  despotic  and  tyrannical.  Why,  let  me  ask  this 
audience  here  to-day,  and  the  distinguished  gentlemen  who  stand  around  me ;  where  is  the 
vote  I  ever  gave,  where  is  the  speech  I  ever  made,  where  is  a  single  act  of  my  whole  public 
life  but  what  has  been  arrayed  against  tyranny  and  against  despotism?  [Applause]  What 
position  have  I  ever  occupied,  what  ground  have  I  ever  stood  upon,  when  I  failed  to  advo- 
cate the  amelioration  and  elevation  of  the  great  mass  of  my  countrymen?    [Applause.] 

So  far  as  charges  of  that  kind  is  concerned,  it  is  simply  intended  to  deceive  and  delude  the 
public  mind,  that  there  is  some  one  in  power  who  is  seeking  to  trample  upon  and  pervert  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution  by  endeavoring  to  cover  and  delude  the  people  so  far  as  their 
own  pubHc  acts  are  concerned.  I  have  felt  it  my  duty,  in  vindication  of  the  principles  of 
the  Constitution  of  my  country,  to  call  their  attention  to  these  proceedings;  but  when  we  go 
forward  and  examine  who  has  been  playing  tyrant,  and  where  has  been  the  tyranny  and 
despotism  exercised,  the  elements  of  my  nature,  and  the  pursuits  of  my  life,  has  not  made 
me  in  my  practice  aggressive,  nor,  in  my  feelings;  but,  my  nature,  rather  on  the  contrary,  is 
defensive;  and  having  placed  my  feet,  or  taken  my  stand  upon  the  broad  principles  of  liberty 
and  the  Constitution,  there  is  not  enough  power  on  earth  to  drive  me  from  it.  [Great 
applause.] 

Upon  that  broad  platform  I  have  taken  my  stand.  I  have  not  been  awed,  or  dismayed,  or 
'  intimidated  by  their  words  or  encroachments  ;  but  I  have  stood  there,  in  conjunction  with 
patriotic  spirits,  sounding  the  tocsin  of  alarm  that  the  citadel  of  liberty  was  encroached  upon. 
[Applause,] 


300  IMPEACHMENT    0?   THE    PRESIDENT. 

I  said  on  one  occasion  before,  and  I  repeat  now,  that  all  that  was  necessary  in  this  j^eat 
strnc^g-le  was  bere,  in  the  contest  with  tyranny  and  despotism,  was  for  the  striig'^le  to  be  suf- 
ficiently audible  that  the  g:reat  mass  of  the  American  jieople  conld  hear  the  struggle  that  was 
going  on,  and  when  ihey  understood  and  lieard  the  struggle  going  on,  and  came  up  and 
looked  in  and  saw  ^\  ho  the  contestants  were,  and  understood  about  what  that  co)itest  was, 
they  would  settle  that  question  upon  the  side  of  the  Constitution  and  principle.     ["Good."] 

It  has  been  Said  here  to-day,  my  faith  is  abiding  in  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  It  is,  and 
in  the  darkest  moment  of  the  stniggle.  when  the  clouds  seemed  to  be  the  most  lowering,  my 
faith,  instead  of  giving  way,  loomed  up  as  from  the  gloom  of  the  cloud,  through  which  I  saw 
that  all  would  be  sate  in  the  end. 

But  tyranny  and  despotism  !  We  all  know  that  tyranny  and  despotism  even,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Thomas  Jetlcrson,  can  be  exercised,  and  exercised  more  effectually  by  many  than 
one.  We  have  seen  Congress  organized;  we  have  seen  Congress  in  its  advance,  step  by 
step,  has  gradually  beenenroaching  upon  constitutional  rights  and  violating  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  government,  day  after  day,  and  month  after  month.  We  have  seen  a  Con- 
gress that  seemed  to  forget  that  there  was  a  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  that  there  was 
limits,  that  there  was  boundaries  to  the  sphere  or  scope  of  legislation.  We  have  seen  Con- 
gress in  a  minority  assume  to  exercise,  and  have  exercised  powers,  if  carried  out  and  con- 
summated, will  result  in  despotism  or  monarchy  itself.  This  is  truth,  and  because  I  and 
others  have  seen  proper  to  appeal  to  the  country,  to  the  patriotism  and  republican  feeling  of 
the  country,  I  have  been  denounced;  slander  after  slander,  vituperation  after  vituperation  of 
the  most  virulent  character,  has  made  its  way  through  the  press.  What,  then,  has  been  my 
sin?  What  has  been  your  sin?  What  has  been  the  cause  of  your  offending?  Because  you 
dare  stand  by  the  Constitution  of  our  fathers.     [Applause.] 

I  look  upon  the  proceedings  of  this  convention  as  being  more  important  than  any  conven- 
tion that  ever  sat  in  the  United  States.  [Applause.]  When  I  look  at  that  collection  of  citi- 
zens coming  together  voluntarily  and  sitting  in  council,  with  ideas,  with  principles  and 
views,  commensurate  with  all  the  States  and  coextensive  with  the  whole  people;  and  when  I 
contrast  it  with  a  collection  of  gentlemen  who  were  trying  to  destroy  the  country,  I  look  uj)on 
it  as  more  important  than  any  convention  that  has  sat,  at  least,  since  1787;  and  I  think  I 
may  say  here,  too,  that  in  the  declarations  that  it  has  made,  which  are  equally  important  with 
the  Declaration  ot  Independence  itself;  and  I  here,  to-day,  pronounce  it  a  second  declaration 
of  independence.     [Great  applause.] 

In  this  connection,  I  may  remark,  when  yoti  talk  about  declarations  of  independence, 
there  are  a  great  many  people  in  the  United  States  who  want  to  be  free,  that  cannot  chiim, 
exactly,  and  in  fact,  that  they  are  free  at  this  time.  I  may  say  that  your  address  and  the 
declarations  made,  are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  reaftirmation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  [Great  applause.]  Yes,  I  will  go  further,  and  sa3'  that  the  declarations 
that  you  have  there  made,  and  the  principles  enunciated  in  that  address,  is  a  second  procla- 
mation of  emancipation  to  the  people  of  the  United  States;  [applause;]  for  in  the  i)riimul- 
gation,  in  the  proclamation  reaffirming  these  great  truths,  you  have  laid  down  a  platform, 
a  constitutional  platform,  upon  which  all  can  make  common  cause,  and  stand,  rallying  for 
the  restoration  of  the  States  and  the  restoration  of  the  Union,  without  refeience  to  whether 
they  belong  to  this  association,  or  this  party,  or  that  party  ;  but  the  theory  is,  my  country 
rises  above  party.     Upon  this  common  ground  they  can  stand.     [Applause.] 

How  many  are  there  in  the  United  States  that  now  require  to  be  free  ?  They  have  got 
shackles  upon  their  limbs  and  are  bound  as  tight  as  though  they  were,  in  fact,  in  slavery. 
Then,  I  repeat,  it  is  a  second  proclamation  of  emancipation  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
and  fixes  a  common  ground  upon  which  all  may  stand. 

I  have  said  more  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  than  I  intended 
to  have  said;  but,  in  this  connection,  and  in  conclusion,  let  me  ask  this  intelligent  audience 
and  committee  here  to-day,  what  have  I  or  you  to  do  other  than  the  promotion  or  advance- 
ment of  the  common  weal  ?  I  am  opposed  to  egotism — as  much  so  as  any  one — but  here,  in 
a  conversational  manner,  and  in  the  reception  of  the  proceedings  of  this  convention,  I  must 
add,  what  have  I  to  gain,  consulting  hunian  ambition,  more  than  I  have  gained,  excepting 
one  thing  ?  My  ract?  is  run.  I  have  been  placed  here;  by  the  Constitution  of  the  country, 
and  I  may  say  lierc,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  position  in  the  government  I  have  occu- 
pied. I  passed  through  every  sin;;le  ]iosition  from  alderman  in  a  village  to  the  I'residency 
of  the  United  States;  and  now,  in  standing  betore  you,  don"t  you  think  that  all  reasonable 
ambition  should  be  gratifii^d  ?  If  I  wanted  power,  if  I  wanted  to  perjjotuate  my  own  power 
and  that  of  those  who  are  around  me,  how  easy  it  would  have  been  for  me  to  have  held  the 
power  placed  in  my  hands. 

With  the  hill  called  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  and  the.  army  placed  at  my  discretion, 
[laughter  and  ajiplause, ]  I  co\ild  have  remained  at  the  capital  with  fifty  or  sixty  millions  of 
appropriations,  with  the  machinery  to  be  worked  by  my  own  hands,  with  my  satraps  and 
dependants  in  every  township  and  civil  district  in  the  United  States,  wliere  it  might  bo 
nece.s.sary,  with  the  Civil  Rights  bill  coming  along  as  an  auxiliary  [laughter]  .nnd  all  the 
other  patronage  of  th(!  government,  I  could  have  |n'oclaimed  myself  dictator.  ["That's  a 
fact."]  My  j)ride  and  my  power  is,  if  I  have  any,  to  occupy  that  position  which  retains  the 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  people.     [  "  Good"  and  applause.]     It  is  upon  them  I  have  always 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  301 

relied;  it  is  upon  tliem  I  now  rely.  [" Antl  tlioy  will  not  desert  you  either" — applause.] 
And  I  repe.it,  neither  tlie  taunts  nor  jeers  of  Cougi>ess,  nor  of  a  subsidized  and  caluuiuiating 
press,  can  drive  iiic  from  my  purpose.     [Applause.  ] 

I  aekniiwlediie  no  superior  but  two — my  God,  the  author  of  my  existence,  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  [Applause.]  The  one,  I  try  to  obey  all  his  comnuiuds  as  best  T  can, 
compatible  with  mortal  man;  the  other,  in  a  political  and  representative  sense,  the  high 
behest  of  the  people  has  always  been  in  strict  respect,  has  always  been  obeyed  by  nie. 
[Applause.] 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  said  more  than  I  intended  to  say.  For  the  kind  allusions  made  in 
the  addrt'ss  and  in  the  resolutions  or  propositions  adopted  by  j'our  convention,  I  want  to  say 
to  you  that  iu  this  crisis,  in  this  ]>eriod  of  my  public  life,  I  prize  that  last  resolution,  more 
than  all  that  has  come  to  me. .  To  have  the  indorsement  of  a  convention,  constituted  as 
that  was,  emanating  spontaneously  from  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  I  prize  it  above  con- 
sideration, and  I  trust  and  hope  my  future  conduct  will  not  cause  the  convention  that 
adopted  that  to  have  regretted  the  assurance  they  have  given.     ["  Very  sure  of  it.''] 

Before  separating,  and  leaving  you,  gentlemen,  one  and  all,  committee  and  strangers, 
please  accept  my  thanks  for  this  kind  manifestation  of  regard  and  respect  that  you  have 
manifested,  on  this  occasion,  and  to  one  that  feels  so  little  entitled  to  it,  except  upon  the 
simple  consideration  of  having  performed  his  duty. 

I  repeat  again,  as  I  lia\e  said  in  substance,  that  I  have,  and  shall  always  continue  to  be 
guided  by  a  conscientious  conviction.  That  always  gives  me  courage.  The  Constitution  I 
have  made  my  guide.  Then,  accept  my  sincere  thanks  for  this  manifestation  of  your  appro- 
bation and  regard. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  having  concluded  the  reading,  continued  : 

I  do  not  propose,  gentlemen,  to  read  any  more  of  these  versions,  but  to  leave 
them  here  for  any  correction  that  may  be  desired. 

Mr.  Anthony.  I  oflPered  an  order  in  legislative  session,  and  I  do  not  know 
that  it  is  proper  to  call  it  up  at  this  time.     If  not,  I  should  like  to  repeat  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  it  is  not  in  order  to  call  up 
any  business  transacted  m  legislative  session. 

Mr   CoNKLiNG,  (to  Mr.  Anthony.)  Offer  it  originally  now. 

Mr.  Anthony.  Then  I  move  that  the  presiding  officer  be  authorized  to  assign 
a  place  upon  the  floor  to  the  reporter  of  the  Associated  Press. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  A  single  reporter.- 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  it  not  in  order  to  interrupt 
the  business  of  the  trial  with  such  a  motion. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  General  Butler,  will  you  allow  us  to  ask  what  copies  or  ver- 
sions of  the  speech  of  August  18,  1866,  you  consider  included  in  the  testimony 
received  1     One  has  been  read. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  consider  the  two  copies,  one  that  Mr.  Smith  made, 
which  has  been  read,  and  the  corrected  version,  as  the  substantial  copies. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  And  no  others  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  olFer  the  Chronicle,  not  because  it  is  not  evi- 
dence, but  because  I  have  the  same  thing  in  Mr.  Smith's  report. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Then  it  is  only  those  two,  and  they  will  both  be  printed  as 
part  of  the  evidence  in  the  case  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  For  aught  I  care. 

The  other  report  offered  in  evidence — the  one  revised  by  Colonel  Moore  and 
published — is  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee  :  Language  is  inadequate  to 
express  the  emotions  and  feelings  produced  by  this  occasion.  Perhaps  I  could  express  more 
by  permitting  silence  to  speak  and  you  to  infer  what  I  ought  to  say.  I  confess  that,  not- 
withstanding the  experience  I  have  had  in  public  life,  and  the  audiences  I  have  addressed, 
this  occasion  and  this  assembly  are  well  calculated  to,  and  do  overwhelm  me.  As  I  have 
said,  I  have  not  language  to  convey  adequately  my  present  feelings  and  emotious.  In  listen- 
ing to  the  address  which  your  eloquent  and  distinguished  chairman  has  just  delivered,  the 
proceedings  of  the  convention,  as  they  transpired,  recurred  to  my  mind.  Seemingly  I  par- 
look  of  the  inspiiatiou  that  prevailed  in  the  convention  when  I  received  a  despatch  sent  by 
two  of  its  distinguished  members,  conveying  in  terms  the  scene  which  has  just  been  described 
.  of  South  Carolina  and  Massachusetts,  arm  in  arm,  marching  into  that  vast  assemblage,  and 
thus  giving  evidence  that  the  two  extremes  had  come  together  again,  and  that  for  the  future 
they  were  united  as  they  had  been  in  the  past,  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union.  When  the 
despatch  informed  me  that  in  that  vast  body  of  men,  distinguished  for  intellect  and  wisdom, 


302  IMrEACIIMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

every  eye  was  suffused  with  tears  on  bcliokliug  the  scone,  I  could  not  finish  readinf^  the 
despatch  tooueassoc'ated  witli  me  in  the  office,  fi)r  my  own  feelinfrs  overcame  me.  [Applause.] 

I  think  we  may  justly  conclude  that  we  are  movinof  under  a  proper  inspiration,  and  that 
■we  need  not  be  mistaken  that  the  finprer  of  an  oveniilinn^  and  unerring  Providence  is  in  this 
matter.  The  nation  is  in  jjeril.  We  have  just  passed  throufrh  a  mighty,  a  bloody,  a 
momentous  ordeal,  yet  do  not  find  ourselves  free  from  the  difiiculties  and  dangers  that  at 
first  surrounded  us.  While  our  brave  men  have  perfonned  their  duties,  both  officers  and 
men,  (turning  to  General  Grant,  who  stood  at  his  right, )  while  they  have  won  laurels  imperish- 
able, there  are  still  greater  and  more  important  duties  to  perform  :  and  while  we  have  had 
their  co-operation  in  the  field,  we  now  need  their  support  in  our  efforts  to  perpetuate  peace. 
[Applause.]  So  far  as  the  executive  department  of  the  government  is  concerned,  the  effort 
has  been  made  to  restore  the  Union,  to  heal  the  breach,  to  pour  oil  into  the  wounds  wliich 
were  consequent  upon  the  struggle,  and,  to  speak  in  common  phrase,  to  prepare,  as  the 
learned  and  wise  physician  would,  a  plaster,  healing  in  character  and  coextensive  with  the 
wound.  [Applause.]  We  thought,  and  yet  think,  that  we  had  partially  succeeded,  but  as 
the  work  progressed,  as  reconciliation  seemed  to  be  taking  place,  and  the  country  becoming 
united,  we  found  a  disturbing  and  marring  element  opposing  us. 

In  alluding  to  that  element  I  shall  go  no  further  than  did  your  convention  and  the  distin- 
guished gentleman  who  has  delivered  to  me  the  report  of  its  proceedings.  I  shall  make  no 
reference  to  it  that  I  do  not  believe  the  time  and  the  occasion  justify.  We  have  witnessed  in 
one  department  of  the  government  every  effort,  as  it  were,  to  prevent  the  restoration  of  peace 
and  harmony  in  the  Union.  We  have  seen  hanging  upon  the  verge  of  the  government,  as  it 
Avere,  a  body  called,  or  which  assumes  to  be,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States — but,  in  fact, 
a  Congress  of  only  part  of  the  States.  We  have  seen  this  Congress  assume  and  pretend  to 
be  for  the  Union,  when  its  every  step  and  act  tended  to  perpetuate  disunion  and  make  a 
disruption  of  the  States  inevitable.  Instead  of  promoting  reconciliation  and  harmony,  its 
legislation  has  partaken  of  the  character  of  penalties,  retaliation,  and  revenge.  This  has 
been  the  course  and  the  policy  of  one  department  of  your  government.  The  humble  indi- 
vidual who  is  now  addressing  you  stands  the  representative  of  another  department  of  the 
government.  The  manner  in  which  he  was  called  upon  to  occupy  that  position  I  shall  not 
allude  to  on  this  occasion ;  suffice  it  to  say  that  he  is  here  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
country,  and  being  here  by  virtue  of  its  provisions,  he  takes  his  stand  upon  that  charter  of 
our  liberties  as  the  great  rampart  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  [Prolonged  cheering.] 
Having  been  taught  in  my  early  life  to  hold  it  sacred,  and  having  practiced  upon  it  during 
my  whole  public  career,  I  shall  ever  continue  to  reverence  the  Constitution  of  my  fathers  and 
to  make  it  my  guide.  [Hearty  applause.]  I  know  it  has  been  said — and  I  must  be  i)crinitted 
to  indulge  in  this  remark — that  the  executive  department  of  the  government  has  been  despotic 
and  tyrannical.  Let  me  ask  this  audience  of  distinguished  gentlemen  around  me  here  to- 
day to  point  to  a  vote  I  ever  gave,  to  a  speech  I  ever  made,  to  a  single  act  of  my  whole 
public  life,  that  has  not  been  against  tyranny  a'nd  despotism.  What  position  have  1  ever 
occupied,  what  ground  have  1  ever  assumed,  where  it  can  be  truthfully  charged  that  1  failed 
to  advocate  the  ;iiiielii)iatiiiu  and  elevation  of  the  great  masses  of  my  countryuien  ?  [Cries 
of  "Never,"  and  great  apjjlause. ] 

So  far  as  charges  of  that  kind  are  concerned,  I  will  say  that  they  are  simplj'  intended  to 
deceive  and  delude  the  public  mind  into  the  belief  that  there  is  some  one  in  power  who  is 
usurping  and  trampling  upon  the  rights  and  perverting  the  principles  of  the  Constiaitiou. 
It  is  done  by  those  who  make  such  charges  for  the  purpose  of  covering  their  own  acts. 
["That's  so,"  and  applausi'.]  1  have  felt  it  my  duty,  in  vindication  of  principle  and  the 
Constitution  of  my  CDuntiy,  to  call  the  atteiitii)u  of  my  countrymen  to  these  proceedings. 
When  we  come  to  t^xamiue  who  has  been  jjlayiiig  the  tyrant,  by  whom  do  we  find  that  des- 
potism has  been  exercised?  As  to  myself,  the  elements  of  my  nature,  the  pursuits  of  my 
life,  have  not  made  me,  either  in  my  feelings  or  in  my  pr,actice,  aggressive.  My  nature,  on 
the  contrary,  is  latln-r  defensive  in  its  character;  but  I  will  say  that,  having  taken  my  stand 
upon  the  broad  princijdes  of  liberty  and  the  Constitution,  there  is  not  power  enough  on  earth 
to  drive  me  from  it.  [Loud  and  prolonged  applause.]  Having  ])laced  myself  upon  liiat 
broad  platform,  I  have  not  been  awed,  dismayed,  or  intimidated  by  I'ither  threats  or  encroach- 
ments, but  have  stood  there,  in  conjunction  with  patriotic  spirits,  sounding  the  tocsin  of 
alarm  when  1  deemed  the  citadel  of  liberty  in  danger.  [Great  applause.]  I  said  on  a  pre- 
vious occasion,  and  repeat  now,  that  all  that  was  necessary  in  this  great  struggle  against 
tyranny  and  despotism  was,  that  the  struggle  should  be  sufficiently  audible  fur  the  Aminican 
people  to  hear  and  ])roperly  understand.  They  did  hear,  and  looking  on  and  seeing  who  the 
contestants  were  and  what  that  struggle  was  about,  they  determined  that  they  would  settle 
this  question  on  the  side  of  the  Constitution  and  of  principle.  [Cries  of  "That's  so,"  and 
applause.] 

1  proclaim  here  to-day,  as  I  have  on  other  occasions,  that  my  faith  is  abiding  in  the  great 
mass  of  the  people.  In  the  darkest  monu-nt  of  this  struggle,  wlien  the  clouds  seemed  t'  be 
most  lowering,  my  faith,  instead  of  giving  way,  loomed  up  through  the  dark  cloud  far 
beyond — I  saw  that  all  would  be  safe  in  the  end.  My  countrymen,  wo  all  know  that,  in 
tlielauguage  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  "  tyranny  and  despotism  even  can  be  exercised  and 
exerted  more  effectually  by  the  many  tlmu  the  one."     We  have  seen  a  Congress  gradually 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  303 

encroach,  step  by  stop,  upon  constitutional  riplits,  and  violate,  day  after  day  and  month  after 
month,  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  government.  [Cries  of  "Tliat's  so  !"aud  ap])l!iuse.] 
We  have  seen  a  Con^^ress  that  seemed  to  forget  that  there  was  a  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  there  was  a  limit  to  the  sphere  and  scope  of  legislation.  We  have  seen  a 
Congress  in  a  minority  assume  to  exercise  powers  which,  if  allowed  to  be  carried  out,  would 
result  in  despotism  or  monarchy  itself.  [Enthusiastic  applause.]  This  is  truth  ;  and  because 
others  as  well  as  myself  have  seen  proper  to  appeal  to  the  patriotism  and  republican  feeling 
of  the  country  we  have  been  denounced  in  the  severest  terms.  Slander  upon  slander,  vitu 
peratiou  upon  vituperation,  of  the  most  villauous  character,  has  made  its  way  through  the 
press. 

What,  gentlemen,  has  been  your  and  my  sin  ?  What  has  been  the  cause  of  our  offending  ? 
I  will  tell  you — daring  to  stand  by  the  Constitution  of  our  fathers. 

[Approaching  Senator  Johnson.]  I  consider  the  proceedings  of  this  convention,  sir,  as 
more  important  than  those  of  any  convention  that  ever  assembled  in  the  United  Statt-s. 
(Great  applause.)  When  I  look  with  my  mind's  eye  upon  that  collection  of  citizens,  coming 
together  voluntarily,  and  sitting  in  council  with  ideas,  with  principles  and  views  commen- 
surate with  all  the -States,  and  coextensive  with  the  whole  penple,  and  contrast  it  with  the 
collection  of  gentlemen  who  are  trying  to  destroy  the  country,  1  regard  it  as  more  important 
than  any  convention  that  has  sat  at  least  since  1787.  (Renewed  applause.)  I  think  I  may 
say  also  that  the  declarations  that  were  there  made  are  equal  with  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence itself,  and  I  here  to-day  pronounce  it  a  second  Declaration  of  Independence.  (Cries 
of  ''Glorious,"  and  most  enthusiastic  and  prolonged  applause.)  Your  address  and  declara- 
tions are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  reaiifirmation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
(Cries  of  "Good !"  and  applause. )  Yes,  I  will  go  further,  and  say  that  the  declarations 
you  have  made,  that  the  principles  you  have  enunciated  in  yoiu"  address,  are  a  .second  pro- 
clamation of  emancipation  to  the  people  of  the  United  States — (renewed  applause) — for  in 
proclaiming  and  reproclaiming  these  great  truths  you  liave  laid  down  a  constitutional  plat- 
form upon  which  all  can  make  common  cause,  and  stand  united  together  for  the  restoration 
of  the  States  and  the  preservation  of  the  government  without  reference  to  party.  The  query 
only  is  the  salvation  of  the  country,  for  our  country  rises  above  all  party  considerations  or 
influences.  (Cries  of  "Good!  "  and  applause.)  How  many  are  there  in  the  United  States 
that  now  require  to  be  free'' — they  have  the  shackles  upon  tiieir  limbs,  and  are  bound  as 
rigidly  as  though  they  were  in  fact  in  slavery?  I  repeat,  then,  that  your  declaration  is  the 
second  proclamation  of  emancipation  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  otfers  a  conunon 
ground  upon  Mhich  all  patriots  can  stand.     (Applause.) 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen:  Let  me,  in  this  connection,  ask  you  what  have  I  to  gain 
more  than  the  advancement  of  the  public  welfare?  I  am  as  much  opposed  to  the  indulgence 
of  egotism  as  any  one ;  but  here,  in  a  conversational  manner,  while  formalh'  receiving  the 
proceedings  of  this  convention,  I  may  be  permitted  again  to  ask,  what  have  I  to  gain,  con- 
sulting human  ambition,  more  than  I  have  gained,  except  in  one  thing  ?  My  race  is  nearly 
run.  I  have  been  placed  in  the  high  office  which  I  occupy  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
country,  and  I  may  say  that  I  have  held,  from  lowest  to  highest,  almost  every  position  to 
which  a  man  nuiy  attain  in  our  governuient.  I  have  passed  through  every  position,  from  an 
alderman  of  a  village  to  the  presidencj'  of  the  United  States;  and  surely,  gentlemen,  this 
should  be  enough  to  gratify  a  reasonable  ambition.  If  I  wanted  authority,  or  if  I  wished  to 
perpetuate  my  power,  how  easy  would  it  have  been  to  hold  and  wield  that  which  was  placed 
in  my  hands  by  the  measure  called  the  "Freedmen's  Bureau  bill."  (Laughter  and 
applause.)  With  an  army  which  it  placed  at  my  discretion  I  could  have  remained  at  the 
capital  of  the  nation,  and  with  fiftj'  or  sixty  millions  of  appropriations  at  my  disposal, 
with  the  machinery  to  be  worked  by  my  own  hands,  with  my  satraps  and  dependents  in 
every  town  and  village,  and  then  with  the  "Civil  Rights  bill  "  following  as  an  auxiliary — 
(laughter) — in  connection  with  all  the  other  appliances  of  the  government,  I  could  have 
proclaimed  myself  Dictator!     ("That's  true,"  and  applause.) 

But,  gentlemen,  my  pride  and  ambition  have  been  to  occupy  that  position  which  retains 
all  power  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  (Great  cheering.)  It  is  upon  that  I  have  always 
relied:  it  is  upon  that  I  rely  now.  (A  voice — "And  the  people  will  not  disappoint  you.") 
And  I  repeat,  that  neither  the  taunts  nor  jeers  of  Congi'ess,  nor  of  a  subsidized,  calumnia- 
ting press,  can  drive  me  from  my  purpose.  (Great  applause.)  I  acknowledge  no  superior 
except  m^'  God,  the  author  of  my  existence,  and  the  people  of  the  United  States.  (Prolonged 
and  enthusiastic  cheering.)  For  the  one,  I  try  to  obey  all  his  commands  as  best  I  can  com- 
patible with  my  poor  humanity;  for  the  other,  in  a  political  and  representative  sense,  the 
high  behests  of  the  people  have  always  been  respected  and  obeyed  by  me.  (Applause.)  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  have  said  more  than  I  intended  to  say.  For  the  kind  allusions  to  myself  con- 
tained in  your  address,  and  in  the  resolulions  adopted  by  the  convention,  let  me  remark  that, 
in  this  crisis,  and  at  this  period  of  my  public  life,  I  hold  above  all  price,  and  .shall  everiocur 
■with  feelings  of  profound  gratification  to  the  last  resolution  containing  the  indorsement  of  a 
convention  emanating  spontaneously  from  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  I  trust  and  hope 
that  my  future  action  may  be  such  that  you  and  the  convention  that  you  represent  may  no* 
regret  the  assurance  of  confidence  you  have  expressed.  ("We  are  sure  of  it.")  Before  sep- 
arating, my  friends,  one  and  all,  committee  and  strangers,  please  accept  my  sincere  thanks 


304  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

for  the  kind  manifestations  of  regard  and  respect  you  have  exhibited  on  this  occasion.  I 
repeat,  that  I  shall  always  continue  to  he  guided  by  a  conscientious  conviction  of  duty,  and 
that  Jilways  gives  me  courage,  under  the  Constitution,  whicli  I  have  nu\de  my  guide. 

WfLLiAM  N.  Hudson  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  "What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  I  am  a  journalist  by  occupation. 

Q.  Where  is  your  home  ? 

A.  In  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Q.  What  paper  do  you  have  charge  of? 

A.  The  Cleveland  Leader. 

Q.  Where  were  you  about  the  3d  or  4th  of  September,  1866  1 

A    I  was  in  Cleveland. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  then  ? 

A.  I  was  then  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Leader. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  speech  that  President  Johnson  made  there  from  the 
balcony  of  a  hotel  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  report  it  ? 

A.  I  did,  with  the  assistance  of  another  reporter. 

Q.  Who  is  he  ? 

A.  His  name  is  Johnson. 

Q.  Was  your  report  published  in  the  paper  the  n6xt  day  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Have  you  a  copy  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Will  you  produce  it  ? 

The  witness  produced  a  copy  of  the  Cleveland  Leader  of  September  4,  1866. 

Q.  Have  you  your  original  notes  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.   W^here  are  they  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell.     They  are  probably  destroyed. 

Q.  Have  you  the  report  in  the  paper  of  which  you  are  the  editor,  which  was 
published  the  next  day  ? 

A.  I  have  the  report  which  I  have  submitted. 

Q,.  What  can  you  say  as  to  the  accuracy  of  that  report  ? 

A.  It  is  not  a  verbatim  report,  except  in  portions.  There  are  parts  of  it 
which  are  verhailm,  and  parts  are  synopses. 

Q.  Does  the  report  distinguish  the  parts  which  are  not  verbatim  from  those 
which  are  ? 

A.  It  does. 

Q.  Is  all  put  in  that  Mr.  Johnson  did  say  ? 

Mr.  EvAUTS.  He  says  not. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  Is  anything  left  out  which  Johnson  said  ? 
A.  Yes. 

;Mr.  EvARTs.  Do  you  mean  the  President  or  reporter  Johnson  ? 
Mr.  Sta.\'I5KRV.  Whom  do  you  mean  by  Johnson  ? 
Mr.  EvART.s.  There  was  another  John.son  mentioned. 
Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Not  on  this  occasion. 
Mr.  EvAR'i'S.  Yes,  reporter  Johnson. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  mean  Andrew  Johnson  "last  aforesaid." 
A.  The  report  leaves  out  some  portions  of  Mr.  Johnson's  speech  ;  states  them 
in  eynoptieal  form. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  305 

Q.  Is  tbeve  anything  put  in  there  that  he  did  not  say  ? 

A.  There  are  words  used  which  he  did  not  use,  in  stating  the  substance  of  what 
he  said.     There  is  nothing  substantially  stated  that  he  did  not  state. 

Q.  When  was  that  report  prepared  by  yourself  ?  ' 

A.  It  was  prepared  on  the  evening  of  the  delivery  of  the  speech. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  after  it  was  printed  ? 

A.  I  did.  . 

Q.  Did  you  examine  it  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  what  can  you  say  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  report  Avherever  the 
words  are  professed  to  be  given  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  remembrance  it  is  accurate. 

Q.  You  now  believe  it  to  be  accurate  1 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  How  far  do  you  say  it  is  accurate  where  substance  is  professed  to,  be 
given  1 

A.  It  gives  the  substance — the  sense  without  the  words. 

Q.  Taking  the  synoptical  part  and  the  verbatim  part,  does  the  whole  giVe 
the  substance  of  what  he  said  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  It  does. 

Q.  By  way  of  illustration  of  what  I  mean,  take  this  part :  "Haven't  you  got 
the  court?  Haven't  you  got  the  Attorney  General?  Who  is  your  Chief 
Justice  ?"     Is  that  the  synoptical  part  or  is  that  the  verbatim  part  ? 

A.  That  is  part  of  the  verbatim  report. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  {to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  I  propose,  now, 
gentlemen,  to  put  this  in  evidence. 

Mr.  E  VARTS.  We  will  cross-examine  him  before  you  put  the  paper  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts: 
Q.  Mr.  Hudson,  was   this   newspaper  that  you  edited   and  for  which  you 
reported  of  the  politics  of  the  President  or  of  the  opposite  opinion  ? 
A.  It  was  republican  in  politics. 

Q.  Opposite  to  the  views  of  the  President,  as  you  understood  them  1 
A.  It  was. 

Q.  At  what  time  was  this  speech  made  ? 
A.  On  the  3d  of  September,  1S66. 
Q.  At  what  hour  of  the  day? 
A.  About  nine  in  the  evening. 
Q.  It  commenced  then  ? 
A.  It  commenced. 
Q.  When  did  it  conclude  ? 
A.  I  think  about  a  quarter  before  ten. 
Q.  And  was  there  a  large  crowd  there  ? 
A.  There  was. 

Q.  Of  the  people  of  Cleveland  ? 

A.  Of  the  people  of  Cleveland  and  surrounding  towns. 
Q.  Was  this  balcony  from  which  the  President  spoke  also  crowded  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  where  were  you  ? 
A.  I  was  upon  the  balcony. 

Q.  What  convenience  or  arrangement  had  you  for  taking  notes  ? 
A.  I  took  my  notes  upon  m}-^  knee  as  I  sat. 
Q.  Where  did  you  get  light  from  ? 
A.  From  the  gas  above. 
Q.  At  what  time  that  evening  did  you  begin  to  write  out  your  notes  ? 

20  I  p 


306  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  remembrance  about  11  o'clock. 
Q.  And  when  did  you  finish  1 

A.  Between  twelve  and  one. 

Q.  And  when  did  it  go  to  press? 

A.  About  three  o'clock  in  the  morning — between  three  and  four. 

Q.  Did  you  write  the  synoptical  parts  from  your  notes,  or  from  your  recollec- 
tion of  the  drift  of  the  speech  ? 

A.  From  my  notes. 

Q.  You  added  nothing,  you  think,  to  the  notes  1 

A.  Nothing. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  produce  all  that  was  in  the  notes  ?     Is  that  it  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  omitted  wholly  some  parts  that  were  in  your  notes,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  I  endeavored  to  give  the  substance  of  all  the  President  said. 

Q.  You  mean  the  meaning,  do  you  not  ? 

A.  The  meaning. 

Q,  As  you  understood  it  ? 

A.  As  I  understood  it. 

Q.  That  is  the  drift  of  it? 

A.  Exactly. 

Q.  That  is  what  you  mean  exactly.  Yon  think  you  meant  t9  give  the  drift 
of  the  whole  that  you  did  not  report  verbatim  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  not  leave  out  any  of  "  the  drift  1" 

A.  Not  intentionally. 

Q.  But  actually  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  remembrance. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  looked  to  see  1 

A.  I  have  not  compared  the  speech  with  any  full  report  of  it. 

Q.  Nor  with  your  noies  1 

A.  1  did  subsequently  compare  the  speech  with  my  notes. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  this  drift  part  1 

A.  I  mean  to  say  that  I  compared  the  speech  as  reported  here  with  my  notes. 

Q.  I  mean  the  part  that  is  synoptical ;  did  you  compare  that  with  your  notes  1 

A.  1  did. 

Q.  When? 

A.  On  the  next  day,  and  I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  it  several  times  since. 

Q.  When  did  your  notes  disappear? 

A.  In  the  course  of  a  few  weeks.     They  were  not  presel-ved  at  all. 

Q.  Are  you  sure,  then,  that  you  ever  compared  it  with  your  notes  after  the 
immediately  following  day  ? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  Did  you  destroy  your  notes  intentionally  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Where  are  they  1 

A.  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  In  regard  to  the  part  of  the  speech  which  you  say  you  reported  verbatim, 
did  you  at  any  time,  after  writing  it  out  that  night,  compare  the  transcript  with 
the  notes  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  For  the  purpose  of  seeing  that  it  was  accurate  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  was  that? 

A.  That  was  on  the  next  day. 

Q.  With  whose  assistance  ? 

A.  I  think  without  assistance,  to  the  best  of  my  remembrance. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  307 

Q.  Did  you  find  any  chacges  necessary  1 

A.  There  were  typograpbical  errors  in  the  reading  of  the  proof.  There  were 
no  material  errors. 

Q.  But  were  there  no  errors  in  your  transcript  from  the  notes  1 

A.  I  may  have  misapprehended  the  question.  I  did  not  compare  my  manu- 
script transcript ;  I  compared  the  speech  as  printed. 

Q.  With  what  ? 

A.  With  my  notes. 

Q.  That  was  not  my  question ;  but  you  say  you  did  compare  the  speech  as 
printed  with  your  notes,  and  not  with  your  transcript  ? 

A.  Not  with  the  transcript. 

.  Q.  Did  yon  find  that  there  were  no  errors  in  the  print  as  compared  with  the 
original  notes  1 

A.  There  were  some  typographical  errors. 

Q.  No  others  1 

A.  No  others  to  the  best  of  my  remembrance. 

Q.  Not  a  word  ? 

A.  I  remember  no  others. 

Q.  Were  there  any  others  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Are  you  prepared  to  say  that  you  observed  in  comparing  your  printed 
paper  of  that  morning  with  your  phonographic  notes  that  the  printed  paper  was 
absolutely  accurate  ? 

A.  My  notes  were  not  phonographic. 

Q.  What  are  they  1 

A.  They  were  made  in  writing. 

Q.  Written  out  in  long  hand  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say,  sir,  that  you  can  write  out  in  long  hand,  word  for 
word,  a  speech  as  it  comes  from  the  mouth  of  a  speaker  ? 

A.  I  mean  to  say  that  in  this  instance  I  did  parts  of  the  speech. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  even  have  notes  that  were  verbatim  except  for  part  of 
the  speech  1 

A.  That  was  all. 

Q.  And  then  you  made  your  synopsis  or  drift  as  it  went  along  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  How,  and  upon  what  rule  did  you  select  the  parts  that  you  should  report 
accurately  and  those  of  which  you  should  give  "  the  drift?" 

A.  Whenever  it  was  possible  to  report  accurately  and  fully,  I  did  so.  When 
I  was  unable  to  keep  up  with  the  speaker  I  gave  the  substance  as  I  could  give 
it.  There  were  times  during  the  speech  when,  owing  to  the  slowness  with 
which  the  speaker  spoke  and  the  interruptions,  a  reporter  was  able  to  keep^  up 
writing  in  long  hand  with  the  remarks  of  the  President. 

Q.  Then  that  is  your  report  of  his  speech  1 

A.  It  is. 

Q.  Not  by  the  aid  of  phonography  or  short-hand  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  abbreviate  or  write  in  full  the  words  that  you  did  write  ? 

A.  I  abbreviated  in  many  instances. 
Q.  Do  you  remember  that  ] 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  an  instance  of  one  of  your  abbreviations  that  is  now- 
written  out  here  in  full  1 

A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  You  cannot  recall  one  ? 

A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  without  any  printed  paper  before  you,  how  much  of  President 


308  IMPEACHMENT    OF  THE   PRESIDENT. 

Johnson's  speccli,  as  made  at  Cleveland  on  the  third  of  September,  can  you 
repeat  ? 

A.  I  can  repeat  none  of  it. 

Q.  None  whatever  ? 

A.    Vcrhatim,  none. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  could  give  "  the  drift"  of  some  of  it  ? 

A.  I  think  I  might. 

Q.  As  you  understand  it  and  remember  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  be  understood  that  you  wrote  down  one  single  sentence 
of  the  President's  speech,  word  for  word,  as  it  came  from  his  mouth  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Will  you  point  out  anywhere  any  such  sentence  ? 

A.  The  sentences  which  were  read  by  the  manager  were  written  out  word 
for  word. 

Q.  Those  tln-ee  questions  which  he  read  %  Now,  do  you  mean  to  say  that 
any  ten  consecutive  lines  of  the  printed  report  of  your  newspaper  you  wrote 
down  in  leng-hand,  word  for  word,  as  they  came  from  the  President's  mouth  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  how  much  of  it  I  wrote  down  at  this  distance  of  time.  It 
is  my  impression,  however,  that  there  were  as  much  as  that,  and  more. 

Q.  Can  you  say  anything  more  than  this,  that  you  intended  to  report  as 
nearly  as  you  coiild  and  as  well,  under  the  circumstances,  without  the  aid  of 
short-hand  faculty,  what  the  President  said  ? 

A.  I  can  say,  in  addition  to  that,  that  there  are  parts  of  this  speech  which 
were  reported  as  he  said  them. 

Q.  From  present  memory  ? 

A.  From  memory  of  the  method  in  which  those  notes  wei-e  taken. 

Q.  What  parts  can  you  so  state  ?  As  to  all  that  purports  to  be  vcrhatim,  are 
you  ready  so  to  swear  ? 

A.  I  cannot  swear  that  it  is  the  absolute  language  in  all  cases.  I  can  swear 
that  it  is  an  accurate  report. 

Q    What  do  you  mean  by  an  accurate  report,  and  not  an  absolute  report  ? 

A.  I  mean  to  say  a  report  which  gives  the  general  form  of  each  sentence  as 
it  was  uttered,  perhaps  varying  in  one  or  two  words  occasionally. 

Q,  I  asked  you  just  now  if  you  could  say  any  more  than  that  you  intended 
to  report  as  well  as  you  could  under  the  circumstances  in  which  you  were 
placed  and  without  the  aid  of  short-hand  faculty  ? 

A.  I  can  say  in  addition  to  that,  that  there  are  portions  of  this  which  are 
reported  verhathn. 

Q.  Now,  I  want  you  to  tell  me  whether  all  that  purports  to  be  vcrhatim  is, 
iu  your  memory  and  knowledge,  accurately  reported  f 

A.  It  is  accurately  reported ;   I  should  not  say  with  absolute  accuracy. 

Q.  The  whole  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  portion  of  the  speech  that  you  did  not  profess  to  report 
vcrhatim,  what  assurance  have  you  that  you  did  not  omit  some  part  of  thi-  speech  ? 

A.  There  are  portions  which  are  not  given  with  entire  fullness ;  but  the  sub- 
stance and  meaning  in  all  cases  I  intended  to  give. 

Q.  What  assurance  have  you  that  some  portions  of  the  speech  are  not  omitted 
entirely  from  your  synoptical  view  ? 

A.  I  was  able  to  take  notes  of  nearly  every  sentence  uttered  by  the  President, 
and  I  am  confident  that  I  did  not  fail  to  take  notes  of  at  least  any  paragraph  of 
the  report. 

Q.  Any  paragraph  of  the  speech  !  That  is  to  say,  you  are  confident  that 
notliingthat  would  have  been  aparagraph  after  it  was  printed  was  left  out  by  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  309 

Q.  He  did  not  speak  in  paragraphs,  did  he  ? 

A.  Of  course  not. 

Q.  You  are  sure  you  did  not  leave  out  what  woukl  be  the  whole  of  a  para- 
graph ;  did  you  leave  out  what  would  be  half  of  a  paragraph  ? 

A.  I  endeavored  to  state  the  substance  of  the  President's  remarks  on  each 
subject  which  he  tijok  up. 

Q.  That  is  the  result ;  that  you  intended  to  state  the  substance  of  his  remarks 
on  each  subject  that  he  took  up  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  supposed  that  you  did  so  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  was  this  synoptical  report  that  you  wrote  out  anything  but  your 
original  notes  that  you  wrote  out  that  night  1 

A.  Condensed  from  them. 

Q.  Condensed  from  your  original  notes  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  your  original  synoptical  view,  as  written  down,  was  again 
reduced  in  a  shorter  compend  by  you  that  night  1 

A.  The  part  of  the  speech  so  reported. 

Q.  And  still  you  think  that  in  this  last  analysis  you  had  the  whole  of  the 
President's  speech  1 

A.  I  endeavored  to  state  his  meaning. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  pretend  to  say,  sir,  that  in  respect  to  any  of  that  portion  of 
your  report  it  is  presented  in  a  shape  in  which  any  man  should  be  judged  as 
coming  from  his  own  mouth  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  Stop  a  moment.     I  object  to  the  question. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  as  a  test  of  his  accuracy. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  may  ask  him  how  accurate;  I  do  not  object  to 
that;  but  Avhetber  he  thinks  the  man  should  be  judged  upon  it  is  not  a  proper 
question. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  ask  him  if  he  professes  to  state  in  this  synoptical  portion  of 
the  printed  speech  made  by  him  it  is  so  produced  as  to  be  properly  judged  as 
having  come  from  the  mouth  of  the  speaker  ] 

The  WiTiXRss.  I  can  only  say  that  it  gives,  to  the  best  of  my  belief,  a  fair 
report  of  what  was  seen. 

Q.  In  your  estimate  1 

A.  In  my  estimate. 

Q.  And  view  ? 

A.  And  belief. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  a  reporter  Johnson,  who  took  part,  as  I  understand  you,  iu 
this  business  ;  what  part  did  he  take  1 

A.  He  also  took  notes  of  the  speech. 

Q.  But  independently  from  you? 

A.  Independently  of  me. 

Q.  But  the  speech  as  printed  in  your  paper  was  made  from  your  notes,  not 
from  his  ? 

A.  From  mine  with  the  assistance  of  his. 

Q.  Then  you  brought  his  in  also  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  condensed  and  mingled  the  reporter  Johnson's  report  and  your  own, 
and  produced  this  printed  result  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  plan  did  Johnson  proceed  with  in  giving  the  drift  or  effect  of  the 
President's  speech  1     Do  you  know  i 

A.  Johnson  took  as  full  notes  as  possible. 

Q.  As  possible  for  him  ? 


310  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  As  full  notes  as  possible  for  him  of  the  President's  speech. 

Q.  How  much  of  this  report,  or  how  much  of  this  analysis  or  estimate  of  what 
the  President  said,  was  made  out  of  your  notes,  and  how  much  out  of  Johnson's? 

A.  The  substance  of  the  report  was  made  from  my  notes,  the  main  portion 
of  it. 

Q.  What  as  to  the  rest  ? 

A.  Whenever  Mr.  Johnson's  notes  were  fuller  than  mine  I  used  them  to  cor- 
rect mine. 

Q.   Was  that  so  in  many  instances  1 

A.  That  was  not  so  in  a  majority  of  instances. 

Q.  But  in  a  minority  ? 

A.  In  a  minority. 

Q.  A  considerable  minority  ? 

A.  Considerable. 

Q.  Did  Johnson  write  long-hand  too  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  connection  had  Johnson  with  you  or  the  paper  ? 

A.  He  was  the  reporter  of  the  paper. 

Q.  Was  there  no  phonographic  reporter  to  take  down  this  speech  ? 

A.  There  was  none  for  our  paper.  There  were  reporters  present,  I  believe, 
for  otlier  papers ;  but  I  cannot  swear  to  that  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  submit  upon  this,  Mr.  Chief  Justice 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Wait  for  a  moment.  I  have  not  yet  got  through  with 
the  witness. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Go  on,  sir. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  You  have  been  asked,  Mr.  Hudson,  about  the  crowd  and  about  the  man- 
ner in  which  you  took  the  speech;   were  there  considerable  interruptions  ? 

A.  There  were. 

Q.  Were  there  considerable  pauses  by  the  President  from  step  to  step  in  his 
speech  ? 

A.  There  were ;  and  necessary  pauses. 

Q.  Why  "necessary?" 

A.  Because  of  the  interruptions  of  the  crowd. 

Q.  Was  the  crowd  a  noisy  one  1 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Were  they  bandying  back  and  forth  epithets  with  the  President  ? 

Mr.  EvARTs.  We  object  to  that.     The  question  is.  What  was  said  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  adopt  that  question.  I  will  repeat  my  ques- 
tion. Whether  epithets  were  thrown  back  and  forward  between  the  President 
and  the  crowd  ? 

.     Mr.  EvARTS  and  Mr.  Curtis.  We  object  to  the  question.     The  proper  ques- 
tion is.  What  was  siiid? 

Mr.  Manager  Bu'I'LKR.  That  is  your  question. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  question,  as  put,  is  loading  and  assuming  a  state  of  facts. 
It  is  asking  if  they  bandied  ej)itlieta.  Nobody  knows  what  ''bandying"  is  or 
what  "epithets"  are. 

]\Ir.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witn(>ss.)  ])o  you  know  what  ''bandying" 
means,  Mr.  Witness?     Do  you  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word? 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  suppose  our  objccLion  is  first  to  be  disposed  of,  Mr.  Chief 
Justice  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  wanted  to  see  whether,  in  the,  first  place,  I  had  got 
an  intelligible  English  word.  However,  I  withdraw  the  ({uestion.  [A  pause.] 
My  proposition  is  this,  sir:  it  is  not  to  give  language 

Mr.  EvARTS.  There  is  no  objection  if  you  have  withdrawn  yonr  question. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  311 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  not.  I  have  only  withdrawn  the  question  as 
to  the  meaning  of  a  word  which  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  President  did  not 
understand.  I  was  about,  sir,  stating  the  question.  In  Lord  George  Gordon's 
case,  when  he  was  upon  trial,  as  your  honor  will  remember,  the  cries  of  the 
crowd  were  allowed  to  be  put  in  evidence  as  cries,  though  it  was  objected  that 
they  could  not  be  put  in  evidence.  But  that  question  precisely  is  not  raised 
here,  because  I  am  now  upon  the  point,  not  of  showing  what  was  said,  not 
repeating  language,  but  of  showing  what  was  said  and  done  by  way  of  inter- 
ruption. I  am  following  the  line  of  cross-examination  which  was  opened  to  me. 
It  was  asked  what  interruptions  there  were;  whether  there  was  a  crowd  there  ; 
how  far  he  was  interrupted  ;  how  flir  he  was  disturbed  ;  if  the  President  stopped 
in  the  midst  of  a  speech  to  put  back  an  epithet  which  was  thrown  to  him  from 
the  crowd,  and  if  the  crowd  was  answering  back  and  he  replying  ;  if  they  were 
answering  backward  and  forward,  a  man  could  very  well  write  down  in  long- 
hand what  he  had  just  said. 

j\lr.  EvARTS.  The  witness  stated  that  there  were  interruptions. 

Mr.  Afanager  Butler.  And  I  am  following  that  up. 

"Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  the  only  point  of  your  inquiry. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  asked  the  nature  of  them  to  know  whether  they 
would  be  likely  to  disturb  a  speaker  and  make  him  pause. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  question  to  which  we  objected  was,  "Was  there  a  bandy- 
ing of  epithets  backward  and  forward  between  the   President  and  the  crowd]" 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorable  manager  will  be  good  enough  to  reduce 
his  question  to  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  not  stop  to  do  it  in  that  form,  but  I  will  put  it 
in  another  shape.  (To  the  witness.)  What  was  said  by  the  crowd  to  the  Pres- 
ident, and  what  was  said  by  the  President  to  the  crowd  1 

A.  The  President  was  frequently  interrupted  by  cheers,  by  hisses,  and  by 
cries,  apparently  from  those  opposed  to  him  in  the  crowd. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  You  have  the  right  to  refresh  your 
memory  by  any  memorandum  which  you  have,  or  copy  of  memorandum  made 
at  the  time. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  Not  a  copy. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir  ;  any  copy  of  a  memorandum  which  you  know 
is  a  copy  made  at  the  time  ;  and  state,  if  you  please,  what  kind  of  epithets  passed. 

The  witness,  placing  a  newspaper  before  him,  was  about  to  read  therefrom. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  do  not  regard  the  newspaper  as  a  memorandum  made  at 
the  time. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  He  may  refer  to  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Our  objection  is  that  it  is  not  a  memorandum, 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Vfe  may  as  well  have  that  settled  at  once,  if  it  is  to 
be  done.  When  a  man  says,  "  I  wrote  down  the  best  I  could,  and  put  it  in 
type  within  four  hours  of  that  time,  and  I  know  it  was  correct,  for  t  examined 
it,"  I  insist  that  on  every  rule  of  law  in  every  court  where  any  man  ever  prac- 
ticed that  is  a  memorandum  by  which  the  witnesS  may  refresh  his  recollection. 

Tbe  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  object  to  the  proof  of 
the  loss  of  the  original  notes  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  do  not  on  this  question.  This  witness  is  to  speak  by  his 
recollection  if  he  can  ;  if  he  cannot  he  is  allowed  to  refresh  it  by  the  presence  of 
a  memorandum  which  he  made  at  the  lime. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  We  deny  that  to  be  the  rule  of  law.  It  may  be  by 
any  memorandum,  which  was  correct  at  the  time  to  his  knowledge.  On  this 
point  I  am  not  without  authority.  In  Starkie  on  Evidence  is  a  reference  to  a 
case  2  Adolphus  and  Ellis,  210,  where  it  was  said  : 

In  many  case.s,  siicli  as  where  an  agent  lias  been  employed  to  make  a  plan  or  map  and  has 
lost  the  itf'iiis  of  actual  admeasurement,  all  he  can  state  Is  that  the  plan  or  map  is  correct, 
and  has  been  coustmcted  from  materials  which  he  knew  at  the  time  to  be  true. 


312  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

He  lias  tlien  a  right  to  use  the  map  or  plan  which  he  made  afterward  having 
lost  his  field-notes,  to  refresh  his  memory,  saying  he  knew  them  to  be  true.  If 
the  witness  puts  down  these  cries  at  the  time  and  these  interruptions  and  these 
cpitlu'ts,  and  he  is  willing  to  state  that  he  knows  them  to  be  true,  because  he 
copied  them  off  from  his  original  notes,  which  he  has  not  now,  he  has  a  right  to 
refresh  his  memory  by  that  copy.     I  read  again  from  Starkie : 

If  the  witness  be  correct  iu  that  which  he  positively  states  fruiii  present  recollection, 
namely,  that  at  a  prior  time  he  had  a  perfect  recollection,  and  having  tlmt  recollection,  truly 
stated  it  in  the  document  produced  in  writing,  though  its  contents  are  thus  but  mediately 
proved,  must  be  true. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  If  he  presently  recollects, 

Mr.  Manager  Bctler.  The  question  now  is  upon  his  using  that  memorandum 
to  refresh  that  recollection.     We  cannot  be  drawn  from  the  point. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorable  manager  M'ill  please  reduce  his  questioa 
to  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler  having  reduced  the  question  to  writing,  read  it  as  fol- 
lows : 

Q.  I  desire  you  to  refresh  your  recollection  from  any  memorandum  made  by  you  at  or  nea^ 
the  time  which  you  have,  which  you  know  to  be  correct,  and  from  that  state  what  was  said  by 
the  crowd  to  the  President,  and  what  he  said  to  the  crowd  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  question  I  do  not  object  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr,  (to  the  witness.)  Look  at  the  memorandum  and  go  on. 

Mr.  Evarts.  That  is  not  a  memorandum;  it  is  a  newspaper. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  Is  that  a  memorandum  made  by  you 
at  the  time  ? 

The  Witness.  This  is  a  copy  of  the  memorandum  made  by  me  at  the  time. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Are  the  notes  from  which  you  made  that  memorandum 
lost? 

The  AVitness.  They  are. 

The  Chief  Justice.  You  may  look  at  it  unless  there  is  some  objection  on 
the  part  of  some  senator. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  do  not  understand  the  question  asked  by 
the  manager. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  understand  the  counsel  for  the  President  as 
objecting. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  am  not  objecting  at  all  ;  I  only  want  to  know  what  the 
question  is. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  inquired  on  the  part  of  the  managers  what  inter- 
ruptions th^-e  were,  and  the  witness  is  requested  to  look  at  a  memorandum  made 
at  the  time  in  order  to  refresh  his  memory.  Of  that  memorandum  he  has  no 
copy,  but  he  made  one  at  the  time,  and  it  is  lost.  The  Chief  Justice  rules  that 
he  is  entitled  to  look  at  a  paper  which  he  knows  to  be  a  true  copy  of  that 
memorandum.  If  there  is  any  objection  to  that  ruling,  the  question  will  be  put 
to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Go  on  now,  sir,  beginning  at  the 
beginning. 

The  Witness,  (with  a  newspaper  before  him.)  The  first  interruption  of  the 
President  by  the  crowd  occurred  on  his  referring  to 

Mr.  EvaRTS,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  understand  the  ruling  of  the  court,  to 
which  of  course  we  submit,  to  be  that  the  witness  is  allowed  to  refresh  himself  by 
looking  at  a  memorandum  made  at  the  time,  which  this  is  considered  equivalent 
to,  and  thereupon  state  from  his  memory,  thus  refreshed,  what  occurred.  He 
must  swear  from  memory  refreshed  by  the  memorandum,  and  not  by  reading 
the  memorandum. 

Mr.  Manager  BuTi-ER.  lie  may  read  tlie  ineinoranduin  to  refresh  his  memory, 
and  tlu'u  testify. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Yes,  sir;  but  not  to  read  it  aluud  to  us. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PEESIDENT.  313 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  Look  at  the  memorandum  and  then 
testify. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  may  read  it  if  you  ph\ase. 

The  Witness.  The  first  interruption  of  the  President  occurred  when  he 
referred  to  ihe  name  of  General  Grant.  He  said  that  a  large  pumber  in  the 
crowd  desired  to  see  General  Grant,  and  to  hear  what  he  had  to  say,  whereupon 
there  were  three  cheers  given  for  General  Grant.  The  President  went  on,  and 
the  next  interruption  occurred  when  he  spoke  of  his  visit,  and  alluded  to  the 
name  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  at  which  there  Avere  cheers.  The  next  serious 
interruption  occurred  at  the  time  that  the  President  used  this  language  :  ''  I  was 
placed  upon  that  ticket,"  the  ticket  for  the  Presidency,  "  with  a  distinguished 
citizen  now  no  more  ;  "  whereupon  there  were  cries,  "  It's  a  pity ;  "  "  Too  bad  ;" 
"  Unfortunate."  The  President  proceeded  to  say,  "  Yes,  I  know  there  are  some 
who  say  'unfortunate.' " 

Mr.  Evakts  and  Mr.  Curtis.  That  will  not  do. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  What  was  then  done  by  the  crowd? 

The  Witness,  (consulting  the  newspaper.)  The  President  went  on  to  say 
that  it  was  unfortunate  for  some  that  God  rules  on  high  and  deals  in  justice,  and 
there  were  then  cheers. 

Mr.  Evakts.  Mr,  Chief  Justice,  the  point  made  by  the  learned  manager  was 
this,  that  in  following  his  examination  of  this  witness,  in  order  to  prove  that  he 
had  times  and  chances  to  write  out  in  long-hand  what  the  President  had  said, 
he  could  show  that  there  were  interruptions  of  space.  That  is  the  whole  matter 
as  I  understand  it,  and  now  he  is  reading  the  President's  speech,  which  is  not 
yet  in  evidence,  nor  permitted  to  be  given  in  evidence,  as  a  part  of  the  question 
whether  there  were  interruptions  or  not  to  allow  him  to  write  it  out. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  He  is,  I  understand,  not  giving  the  President's  speech, 
but  he  is  giving  such  portions  only  as  show  where  the  interruptions  come  in, 
because  he  has  skipped  long  passages.  Now,  when  we  compare  these  interrup- 
tions with  that  which  he  took  accurately,  we  shall  see  how  he  had  time  to  take 
vcrhadm  certain  portions  of  the  speech.     We  go  on  imless  stopped. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  Tlie  witness  will  look  at  the  mem- 
orandum, and  testify  as  well  as  he  can  from  his  present  recollection. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Go  on,  sir,  from  where  you  left  off. 

The  WiTN  ESS.  The  next  interruption  occurred  where  the  President  remarked 
that  if  his  predecessor  had  lived 

]Mr.  Evarts.  The  question  is  of  the  interruption  and  its  duration  and  form, 
not  of  its  being  when  the  President  said  this  or  that,  or  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  beg  your  pardon.  I  put  the  question,  and  it  waa 
expressly  said  there  was  no  objection  to  it,  "  What  did  the  President  say  to  the 
crowd  and  what  did  the  crowd  say  to  the  President  ]"  That  was  not  objected 
to,  but  it  was  said,  "  That  is  what  we  want."  I  put  it  in  writing  and  the  wri- 
ting is  on  the  desk,  that  I  want  what  the  crowd  said  to  the  President,  and  v/hat 
the  President  said  to  the  crowd.  That  Avas  not  objected  to.  (To  the  witness.) 
Go  on,  sir. 

The  Witness,  When  this  remark  was  made  the  crowd  responded  "  Never," 
"  Never,"  and  gave  three  cheers  for  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  The 
President  went  on  :  ''  I  came  here  as  I  was  passing  along,  and  having  been 
called  upon  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging.viewsand  ascertaining  if  we  could" 

The  Chief  Justice.  Mr,  Manager,  do  we  understand  that  the  witness  is  to 
read  the  speech  ? 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  he  is  not  reading  the  speech  ;  he  is  skipping 
whole  paragraphs,  whole  pages  of  it  almost ;  it  is  only  where  the  interruptions 
come  in.  (To  the  witness.)  Now  just  read  the  last  words  before  the  interrup- 
tions come  in,  if  you  please,  which  will  bring  out  all  we  want,  and  that  will 
save  all  trouble. 


314  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Witness.  "When  the  President  remarked  that  he  came  here  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining,  if  he  conh^,  who  was  wronj^  aud  responsible,  the  crowd 
said,  "You  are,"  and  there  were  long-continued  cries.  The  President  inquired 
later  in  his  speech,  who  could  place  his  finger  upon  any  act  of  the  President's 
deviating  from  right,  whereupon  there  were  cheers  and  counter-cries  of  "  New 
Orleans"  long  continued ;  and  that  cry  was  repeated,  frequently  breaking  the 
sentences  of  the  President  into  clauses,  and  at  the  close  of  each  sentence  it  was 
of  some  length.  At  the  same  time  there  were  cries,  "  Why  don't  you  hang 
Jeff.  Davis?"  The  President  responded,  "Hang  Jeff.  Davis  !"  Then  there 
were  shouts  and  cries  of  ''  Down  with  him,  "  and  there  were  other  cries  of 
"Hang  Wendell.  Phillips."  "^Phe  President  asked,  "  Why  don't  you  hang  him  ?" 
There  were  answei;?  given,  "  Give  us  an  opportunity."  The  President  went 
on  to  ask  :  Haven't  you  got  the  court  ?  Haven't  you  got  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral ]  Who  is  yonr  Chief  Justice  who  has  refused  to  sit  on  his  trial  ?"  He 
was  then  interrupted  by  "  groans  aud  cheers."     He  went  on  to  speak  of  calling 

upon  Congress,  "  that  is  trying  to  break  up  the  government" 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Stop. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Well,  sir,  state  what  took  place  then. 
The  Witness.  When  he  said,  "  I  called  upon  your  Congress,  that  is  trying  to 
break  up  the  government,"  there  were  cries  of  "  A  lie  !  "  from  the  crowd, 
hisses,  and  voices  cried  "  Don't  get  mad  ;  "  and  the  President  responded,  "  I  am 
not  mad."  There  were  then  hisses.  After  a  sentence  or  two  there  were  three 
more  cheers  given  for  Congress.  Then,  after  another  sentence,  voices  cried, 
"  How  about  Moses  1 " 
Q.  What  next? 

A.  The  next  interruption  I  find  noted  here 

Mr.  EVARTS.  That  is  not  what  you  are  to  testify  to  ;  not  what  you  find  there, 
but  what  you  remember. 

Mr.  IMauager  BtiTLER.  The  question  is  whether,  after  seeing  it,  you  can 
remember  it  to  tell  it  to  us  ? 

A.  The  next  iiitorruptinn,  I  remember,  was  a  cry  of  "  Yes, "when  the  Presi- 
dent inquired,  "Will  you  hear  me?"  These  cries  were  taken  up  and  were 
repeated,  sometimes  for  several  minutes.  There  was  all  this  time  great  confu- 
sion;  cheers  by  the  friends  of  the  President,  and  counter  cries  by  those  opposed 
to  him.  The  President  repeated  his  question,  asking  if  the  people  would  hear 
him  for  his  cause,  and  for  the  Constitution  of  his  country,  and  there  were  again 
cries,  "  Yes,  yes,"  "  Go  on."  He  proceeded  in  the  nexJ;  sentence  to  inquire 
whether,  in  any  circumstances,  he  ever  violated  the  Constitution  of  the  country, 
to  which  there  were  cries  in  response  of  "  Never,  never,"  and  connter-cries. 
The  interruptions  continued.  Wlien  Mr.  Seward's  name  was  mentioned,  there 
was  a  voice,  "  God  bless  him,"  and  cheers  for  Mr.  Seward.  He  said  that  he 
would  bring  Mr.  Seward  before  the  people,  show  them  his  gaping  wounds  and 
bloody  garments,  and  ask  who  was  the  traitor.  There  were  cries  of  "  Thad. 
Stevens,"  when  the  President  asked,  "Why  don't  you  hang  Thad.  Stevens  and 
Wendell  Pliillii)s  ?"  and  there  were  cheers  and  hisses.  The  President  pro- 
ceeded to  say  that,  having  fought  traitors  at  the  south,  he  would  fight  them  at 
the  north,  when  there  were  cheers  and  hisses  ;  and  there  were  also  cries, 
when  the  President  said  that  he  would  do  this  with  the  help  of  the  people, 
"  We  won't  give  it."  The  interruptions  continued  in  the  shape  of  cheers  and 
hisses  and  cries  of  the  same  sort  throughout  the  speech. 

Q.  Were  those  cries  and  cheers  and  hisses  continued  so  as  to  make  the  inter- 
ruption go  on  for  some  time  ? 

A.  Frequently  for  several  minutes. 

Q.  In  what  >tirae  would  you  be  enabled  to  get  up  with  him  and  get  your 
report  out  ? 

A.  I  was  able  to  make,  during  most  of  these,  a  vcrhathn  report  of  what  the 
President  said. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  315 

Re-cross-examinetl  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q,  You  made  a  memorandum  at  tlie  time  of  these  interruptions  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Of  these  cries  ^nd  hisses  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  while  you  were  doing  that,  you  could  catcli  up  with  reporting  the 
President's  speech,  could  you  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  have  you  not  in  every  statement  that  you  have  made  of  these 
interruptions  read  from  that  newspaper  before  you? 

A.  I  have  read  from  the  newspaper  some.  I  "think  that  every  one  was  in  the 
newspaper.  • 

Q.  Are  you  not  quite  sure  of  it  ? 

A.  I  will  not  be  positive. 

Q.  Not  positive  but  that  you  remember  some  that  are  not  in  the  newspaper  1 

A.  Possibly. 

Q.  Have  you  forgotten  any  that  were  in  the  newspaper? 

A.  No.     I  have  not  given  all  that  occurred  in  the  newspaper. 

Q.  AVithout  that  newspaper,  do  you  recollect  any  of  those  interruptions  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  All  of  them? 

A.  I  should  not  be  able  to  give  all  of  them  without  the  aid  of  the  memorandum. 

Q.  Did  you  not  make  a  full  report  of  these  interruptions  on  your  notes? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Of  all  that  the  crowd  said  ? 

A.  Not  of  all  that  they  said. 

Q.  Why  not  of  all  that  they  said  ? 

A.  Of  all  that  I  was  able  to  catch. 

A.  All  that  you  could  put  down  ?     ■ 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Yon  got  all  that  you  could  put  down,  and  you  left  out  some  of  what  they 
said  because  you  had  not  time  to  put  it  down;  and  yet  you  were  catching  up 
with  the  President? 

A.  I  gave  my  first  attention  to  reporting  the  President.  Whatever  time  I 
had  for  putting  down  cries  besides  that  I  did  so. 

By  Mr.  Senator  Grimes: 

Q.  I  desire  the  witness  to  specify  the  particular  part  of  the  report,  as  pub- 
lished, which  was  supplied  by  the  reporter  Johnson  ? 

A.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  do  that  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  the  senator  will  allow,  me,  I  will  ask  the  witness 
whether  any  special  part  of  the  report  itself  was  supplied  by  Johnson  or  whether 
it  was  only  corrected  by  Johnson's  notes  ? 

The  Witness.  The  report  was  made  out  from  my  notes,  corrected  by  Mv. 
Johnson's  notes.  I  cannot  say  whether  there  were  entire  sentences  from  Mr. 
Johnson's  notes  or  not. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  there  can  be  such  practice  in  reporting  as  to  enable 
a  person  by  long-hand  lo  make  out  a  substantially  accurate  report  ? 

jMr.  Evarts.  To  that  we  object.  You  can  ask  whether  this  witness  by  his 
practice  can  do  it,  not  whether  other  people  can  do  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)     Have  you  had  such  practice  ? 

A.  I  have  had  considerable  practice  in  reporting"  in  this  way,  and  can  make 
out  a  substantially  accurate  report. 

[The  witness,  at  the  request  of  the  honorable  manager,  put  his  initials  on  the 
newspaper  to  which  he  had  referred,  the  Cleveland  Leader  of  September  4, 18C6.] 


316  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Daniel  C.  McEwen  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  What  is  your  profession  ? 

A.  Short-hund  writer, 

Q.  How  long  has  that  been  your  profession  ? 

A.  For  about  four  or  five  years,  I  should  judge. 

Q.  Were  you  employed  in  September,  ISG6,  in  reporting  for  any  paper  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  paper? 

A.  The  New  York  World. 

Q.  Did  you  accompany  Mr.  Johnson  and  the  presidential  party  when  they 
•went  to  lay  the  corner-stone  of  a  monument  in  honor  of  Mr.  Douglas  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  you  join  the  party? 

A.  I  joined  the  party  at  West  Point,  New  York. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  continue  with  the  party  ? 

A.  I  continued  with  them  till  they  arrived  at  Cincinnati  on  their  return. 

Q.  Did  you  go  professionally  as  a  reporter  ] 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Had  you  accommodation  on  the  train  as  such  ? 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  The  entree  of  the  President's  car  % 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  Were  you  at  Cleveland  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  report  of  his  speech  at  Cleveland  from  the  balcony'? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  How,  phonogra|ihically  or  stenographically  ? 

A.    Stenographically. 

Q.  Have  you  your  notes  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Herel 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Produce  them.  [The  witness  produced  a  memorandum-book,]  Have 
you,  at  my  request,  copied  out  those  notes  since  you  have  been  here  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  (Exhibiting  a  manuscript  to  the  witness.)     Is  that  the  copy  of  them  ? 

A.  It  appears  to  be. 

Q.  Is  that  an  accurate  copy  of  your  notes  ? 

A.  It  is. 

Q.  How  accurate  a  report  of  the  speech  are  your  notes  ? 

A.  My  notes  are,  I  consider,  very  accurate  so  far  as  I  took  them.  Some  few 
sentences  in  the  speech  were  interrupted  by  confusion  iu  the  crowd,  which  I 
have  indicated  in  making  the  transcript,  and  the  parts  about  which  I  am  uncer- 
tain I  onelose  in  brackets. 

Q.  Where  you  have  not  enclosed  in  brackets,  how  is  the  transcript  ? 

A.  Correct. 

Q.  Was  your  report  published  % 

A.  I  cannot  say.  I  took  notes  of  the  speech,  but  owing  to  the  lateness  of 
the  hour — it  was  ehiven  o'clock  or  after — it  was  impossible  for  me  to  write  out 
a  report  of  the  speech  and  send  it  to  the  pa|)(  r  which  I  represented.  There- 
fore I  went  to  the  t('legraj)h  ollicc  after  the  sjxm'cIi  was  given,  and  dictated  some 
of  my  notes  to  other  reporters  and  correspondents,  and  we:  made  a  ri'port  which 
we  gav(^  to  the  agent  of  ihe  Associated  Tress,  Mr.  (iobright. 

Q.  Did  the  agent  of  the  Associated  I'ress  accompany  the  presidential  party 
for  a  purpose  'I 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  317 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  Iiis  business  and  duty  to  forward  reports  of  speeches  ? 

A.  I  supposed  it  to  be. 

Q.  Did  you  so  deal  with  hira  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  put  down  the  cheers  and  interruptions  of  the  crowd  or  any 
portion  of  them  ? 

A.  I  have  put  down  a  portion  of  them.     It  was  impossible  to  take  them  all. 

Q.  State  whether  there  was  a  good  deal  of  confusion  and  noise  there  ? 

A.  Thei'e  was  a  great  deal  of  it. 

Q.  Exhibition  of  ill-feeling  and  temper  1 

A.  I  thought  there  was. 

Q.  On  the  part  of  the  crowd  1 

A.  On  the  part  of  the  crowd. 

Q.  How  on  the  part  of  the  President  1 

A.  He  seemed  a  little  excited. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  tijing  said  there  to  him  by  the  crowd  about  keeping 
his  dignity  ? 

A.  I  have  not  it  in  my  notes. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  it  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  it  from  hearing. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  about  not  getting  mad  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  the  crowd  caution  him  not  to  get  mad  1 

A.  The  words  used  were,  "Don't  get  mad,  Andy." 

Q.  Was  he  then  speaking  in  considerable  excitement,  or  otherwise  ?  Did 
he  appear  considerably  excited  at  that  moment  when  they  told  him  not  to  get 
mad  ■? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  not  any  part  of  the  present  inquiry,  which  is  to  verify 
these  notes,  to  see  whether  they  shall  be  in  evidence  or  not. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  understand  ;  but  I  want  to  get  as  much  as  I  can  from 
memory,  and  as  much  as  I  can  from  notes,  and  both  together  will  make  a  per- 
fect transcript  of  the  scene. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  But  the  present  inquiry,  I  understand,  is  a  verification  of  notes. 
Whenever  that  is  abandoned  and  you  go  by  memory  let  us  know  it. 

^Ir.  Manager  Butler.  The  allegation  is  that  it  was  a  scandalous  and  dis- 
graceful scene.  The  difference  between  us  is  that  the  counsel  for  the  President 
claim  the  freedom  of  speech  and  we  claim  the  decency  of  speech.  We  arc  now 
trying  to  show  the  indecency  of  the  occasion.  That  is  the  point  between  us, 
and  the  surroundings  are  as  much  part  of  the  occasion  as  what  was  said. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  understand  you  regard  the  freedom  of  speech  in  this  country 
to  be  limited  to  the  right  of  speaking  properly  and  discreetly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Oh,  no.  I  regard  freedom  of  speech  in  this  country 
the  freedom  to  say  anything  by  a  private  citizen  in  a  decent  manner. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Tliat  is  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  And  who  is  the  judge  of  the  decency  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  court  before  whom  the  man  is  tried  for  breaking 
the  laws  of  decency. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a  man  being  tried  for  freedom  of  speech 
in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No  ;  but  I  have  seen  two  or  three  women  tried ;  I 
never  heard  of  a  man  being  tried  for  it  before.  [Laughter.]  (To  the  witness.) 
I  was  asking  you  whether  there  was  considerable  excitement  in  the  manner  of 
the  President  at  the  time  he  was  cautioned  by  the  crowd  not  to  get  mad  ? 


318  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  was  not  standing  where  I  could  see  the  President.  I  did  not  notice 
his  manner ;  I  only  heard  his  tone  of  voice. 

Q.  Judging  from  what  you  saw  and  heard? 

A.  I  did  not  see  the  President. 

Q.  What  you  heard  ? 

A,  He  seemed  excited ;  I  do  not  kno\v  what  his  manner  is  from  personal  ac- 
quaintance when  he  is  angry. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  The  witness  is 
yours,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Do  you  propose  to  offer  this  report  of  the  speech  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  1  do. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Very  well;  then  I  will  cross-examine  the  witness. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  Did  you  report  the  whole  of  the  President's  speech  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  The  hour  was  late  and  I  left  shortly  before  the  close  ;  I  do 
not  know  how  long  before  he  closed  his  speech. 

Q.  So  your  report  does  not  profess  to  be  of  the  whole  of  the  speech  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  From  the  time  that  he  commenced  till  the  point  at  which  you  left  off  did 
you  report  the  whole  of  his  speech  1 

A.  No,  sir.  Certain  sentences  were  broken  offby  the  interriiption  of  the  crowd, 
as  I  before  stated. 

Q.  But  aside  from  the  interruption,  did  you  continue  through  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  speech  till  the  point  at  which  you  left  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  report  of  it  word  for  word  as  you  supposed  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  as  I  understood  the  speech. 

Q.  And  did  you  attempt  to  include,  word  for  word,  the  iuterruptions  of  the 
assemblage  ? 

A.  I  did.  I  took  what  appeared  to  be  the  principal  exclamations  of  the  crowd  ; 
I  could  not  hear  all  of  them. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  the  copy  or  transcript  that  you  produce  here  ? 

A.  I  made  that  about  two  weeks  since,  after  1  was  summoned  before  the 
managers  of  the  impeachment,  and  gave  evidence  concerning   the   speech  there. 

Q.  Can  you  be  as  accurate  or  as  confident  in  a  transcript  made  after  a  lapse 
of  two  years  as  if  it  had  been  made  presently,  when  the  speech  was  fresh  ? 

A.  I  generally  find  that  when  a  speech  is  fresh  in  my  mind  I  read  the  notes 
with  more  readiness  than  when  they  become  tdd;  but  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the 
report,  I  think  1  can  make  as  accurate  a  transcript  of  the  notes  now  as  at  that 
time. 

Q.  When  you  transcribe  after  the  lapse  of  time  you  have  nothing  to  help 
you  except  the  figures  that  are  before  you  in  your  notes  1 

A.  That  is  all,  with  me. 

Q.  Are  you  not  aware  that  in  phonographic  reporting  there  is  frequent  obscurity 
in  the  haste  and  brevity  of  the  notation  1 

A.  There  sometimes  is. 

By  Mr.  Managr.-r  Butler  : 

Q.  I  observe  that  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  asked  for  the  politics  of  the 
Leader.     May  1  ask  you  for  the  politics  of  the  World? 

A.  I  have  understood  them  to  be  democratic. 

Everett  D.  Stark  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  What  is  your  profession  ? 

Answer.  I  practice  law  now. 

Q.  What  was  your  profession  in  September,  1866  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  319 

A.  I  practiced  law  then. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  In  Cleveland.  I  may  say  T  was  formerly  a  short-hand  i-eporter,  and  do 
more  or  h-ss  of  it  now  in  law  business. 

Q.  Did  you  report  the  speech  of  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United 
States,  from  the  balcony  of  the  Cleveland  hotel  on  the  night  of  the  3d  of  Septem- 
ber, 1866.' 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  what  paper  ? 

A.  For  the  Cleveland  Herald. 

Q.  Did  you  take  it  in  short-hand  ? 

A.  I  did- 

Q.  Was  it  written  out  by  you  and  published  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Was  it  pixblished  as  written  out  by  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  your  short-hand  notes  1 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Are  they  in  existence  ? 

A.  I  suppose  not.  I  paid  no  attention  to  them.  I  suppose  they  were  thrown 
in  the  chip-basket. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  compare  the  printed  speech  in  the  Herald  with  your  notes 
for  any  purpose,  or  with  the  manuscript  ? 

A.  I  did  with  the  manuscript  that  night.  That  is,  I  compared  the  slips  of 
proofs  that  were  furnished  with  the  copy  as  I  took  it  from  the  original  notes. 

Q.  How  did  it  compare  ? 

A.  It  was  the  same. 

Q.  Were  the  slips  of  proofs  the  same  as  the  paper  published  the  next  day  ? 

A.  Just  the  same,  with  such  typographical  corrections  as  were  made  there. 

Q.  Have  you  a  copy  of  the  paper  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Will  you  produce  it  ?  [The  witness  produced  a  copy  of  the  Cleveland 
Herald,  of  September  4,  1866.J  Can  you  how  state  whether  this  is  a  substan- 
tially accurate  report  in  this  paper  of  what  Andrew  Johnson  said  the  night 
before  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  is  generally.  There  are  some  portions  there  that  were  cut 
down,  and  I  can  point  out  just  where  those  places  are. 

Q.  By  being  "  cut  down"  do  you  mean  the  substance  given  instead  of  the 
words  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Does  it  appear  in  the  report  which  are  substantial  and  which  are  the  ver- 
hatim  parts  ] 

A.  Kot  to  any  other  person  than  myself,  as  I  can  tell  from  my  recollection. 

Q.  Can  you  point  out  that  which  is  substantial  and  that  which  is  accurate 
in  the  report  1 

The  Witness.  Do  you  wish  me  to  go  over  the  whole  speech  for  that  purpose  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will,  for  the  present,  confine  myself  to  such  por- 
tions as  are  in  the  articles.  If  my  learned  friends  want  you  to  go  over  the  rest 
they  will  ask  you. 

The  WiTiNESS.  Commencing  a  little  before  where  the  specification  in  the 
articles  of  impeachment  begins,  I  can  read  just  what  Mr.  Johnson  said  at  that 
point. 

Q.  Do  so. 

A.  (Reading )  "Where  is  the  man  living,  or  the  woman,  in  the  community, 
that  I  have  wronged,  or  where  is  the  person  that  can  place  their  finger  upon 
one  single  hairbreadth  of  deviation  from  one  single  pledge  I  have  made,  or  one 


320  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

pingle  violation  of  tlic  Constitution  of  ihe  country  ?  AVhat  tongue  does  lie  speak  ? 
Wliat  religion  does  he  profess  ?  Let  him  come  forward  and  place  his  finger 
upon  one  pledge  I  have  violated."  There  was  some  interruption  by  the  crowd, 
and  various  remarks  were  made,  of  which  I  have  noted  one,  because  only  one  did 
Mr.  Johnson  pay  any  attention  to,  and  that  was  a  voice  that  cried  "  Hang  Jeff.  Da- 
vis." The  President  said,  "  Hang  Jeff.  Davis?  hang  Jeff.  Uavis?  Why  don'tyou?" 
There  was  then  some  applause  and  interruption,  and  he  repeated  "why  don't 
you?"  and  there  was  again  applause  and  interruption  ;  and  the  President  went  on, 
"  Have  not  you  got  the  court  r*  Have  not  you  got  the  court  ?"  repeating  it  twice. 
"  Have  not  you  got  the  Attorney  General  ?  Who  is  your  Chief  Justice — and 
that  refused  to  sit  upon  the  trial  V  There  was  then  interruption  and  applause, 
and  he  went  on  to  say  :  "  I  am  not  the  prosecuting  attorney  ;  I  am  not  the  jury  ; 
but  I  will  tell  you  what  I  did  do  :   I  called  upon  your  Congress  that  is  trying 

to  break  up  the  government" .     At  that  point  there  was  interruption  and 

confusion,  and  there  may  have  been  words  there  uttered  by  the  President  that  I 
did  not  hear,  but  I  think  not.  "  Yes,  did  your  Congress  order  hanging  Jeff. 
Davis?"  and  then  there  was  confusion  and  applause.  And  then  the  President 
went  on  to  say,  "  but  let  prejudices  pass,"  and  so  on. 

Q.  Will  you  now  come  toward  the  conclusion  of  the  other  point  mentioned 
in  the  specifications,  and  state  whether  you  reported  that  accurately  ? 

A.  Commencing  a  little  before  where  the  specification  is  of  the  speech  he 
said:  "In  bidding  you  faj-ewell  here  tonight,  I  would  ask  you,  with  all  the 
pains  Congress  has  taken  to  calumniate  and  malign  me,  what  has  Congress  done  ? 
Has  it  done  anything  to  restore  the  Union  of  the  States  ?  But,  on  the  contrary, 
has  it  not  done  everything  to  prevent  it?  And  because  I  stand  now  as  I  did 
when  the  rebellion  commenced  I  have  been  denounced  as  a  traitor.  My  country- 
men, here  to-night,  who  has  suffered  more  than  I  ?  Who  has  run  greater  risk  ? 
Who  has  borne  more' than  I?  But  Congress,  factious,  dominee'-iug,  tyranni- 
cal Congress,  has  undertaken  to  poison  the  minds  of  the  American  people  and 
create  a  feeling  against  me" — so  far  Mr.  Johnson's  words,  and  I  concluded  the 
sentence  here  in  this  fashion — "in  consequence  of  the  manner  in  which  I  have 
distributed  the  public  patronage."  These  were  not  Mr.  Johnson's  words,  but 
contained  in  a  summary  way  the  reasons  that  he  gave  just  at  that  point  for  his 
action, 

Mr.  EvARTS,  (to  the  managers.)  Do  ycu  propose  to  offer  this  report  of  the 
Cleveland  speech  also? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  T  propose  to  read  one  and  offer  all,  so  that  the  Presi- 
dent may  have  the  privilege  of  collating  them  in  order  to  have  no  injustice 
done  him  as  to  what  he  said. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  do  not  claim  any  privileges  of  that  kind;  on  the  contrary, 
we  propose  to  object  to  all  of  them  tliat  they  are  not  properly  proved. 

Mr.  ^Manager  iirTLf-'.R.  Certainly.  I  observed  that  the  President  objected  in 
his  answer  tliat  we  did  not  put  in  all  he  said,  and  I  mean  to  do  the  best  I  can 
in  that  regard  now. 

Mr.  EvAKT8.  That  is  exactly  what  we  desire,  if  any  thing  is  to  come  in.  Now, 
I  will  proceed  with  the  witness. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts: 

Q.  You  have  a  newspaper  report  here  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  And  that  is  all  you  have? 

A.  That  is  all  the  memorandum  T  have. 

Q.  The  only  memorandum  is  the  newspaper  report? 

A.  The  newspaper  report. 

Q.  What  is  the  dale  of  the  newspaper  ? 

A.  September  4,  186G. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  321 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  stenographic  report  of  the  whole  of  the  President's 
speech  ? 

A.  I  did  with  one  exception. 

Q.  What  exception  is  that  1 

A.  It  was  a  part  of  what  he  said  about  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  Somewhere 
about  the  commencement  of,  I  shouhl  say,  the  hitter  half  of  his  speech  by  time, 
he  went  somewhat  into  details  and  figures  which  I  omitted  to  take  down. 

Q.  Did  you  write  out  your  notes  in  full? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  did  that? 

A.  I  never  did  that. 

Q.  And  you  have  not  now  either  the  notes  or  any  transcript  of  them  ? 

A.  Only  this. 

Q.  You  have  got  a  newspaper ;  I  understand  that.  Now,  did  you  prepare' 
for  the  newspaper  the  report  that  is  there  contained  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  you  prepared  it  on  the  plan  of  some  part  verbatim  and  some  part 
condensed  1 
.  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  rule  of  condensation  and  the  motive  of  it? 

A.  I  had  no  definite  rule  that  I  can  give.  The  reason  why  I  left  out  a  part 
of  what  he  said  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  was 

Q.  That  was  not  condensed  at  all,  was  it? 
,    A.  That  part  was  not  taken.     That  I  did  take  was  somewhat  condensed. 

Q.  1  am  only  asking  about  what  you  did  take,  not  what  you  did  not  take. 
W^hat  was  your  rule  in  respect  to  what  you  put  verbatim  into  your  report  and 
Avhat  you  condensed?  How  did  you  determine  which  parts  yo.u  Avould  treat  in 
one  way  or  the  other  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  perhaps  I  was  influenced  somewhat  by  what  I  considered 
would  be  a  little  more  spicy  or  entertaining  to  the  reader. 

Q.  In  which  interest,  that  of  the  President  or  his  opponents?' 

A.  Well,  I  do  not  know  that. 

Q.  Which  side  were  you  on  ? 

A.  I  was  opposed  to  the  President. 

Q.  But  you  do  not  know  which  you  thought  the  interest  was  you  selected 
the  spicy  part  for? 

A.  I  was  very  careful  of  those  parts  that  occasioned  considerable  excitement 
or  interest  in  the  crowd,  in  his  hearers,  to  take  them  down  carefully,  as  he  said 
them. 

Q.  The  parts  that  the  crowd  were  most  interested  in  you  thought  you  would 
take  down  carefully? 

A.  With  more  particularity. 

Q.  And  the  parts  that  they  were  interested  in,  as  you  observed,  were  those 
that  they  made  the  most  outcry  about?     Was  it  not  so  ?  •  , 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  partially  so. 

Q.  That  was  your  judgment  and  guide  ? 

A.  Considerably. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  condensed  part  of  your  report,  are  you  able  to  say- 
that  there  is  a  single  expression  in  that  portion  of  your  report  which  was  used 
by  the  President,  so  that  the  words  as  they  came  from  hi-s  mouth  Avere  there- 
set  down  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  think  it  is  not  the  case  in  those  particular  points  that  I  con- 
densed.    I  did  so  by  the  use,  in  some  part,  of  my  own  words. 

Q.  And  for  compression  of  space,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  Y'^es,  sir ;  primarily. 

21  I  P 


322  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  "Was  not  your  rule  for  coudeusation  partly  when  you  had  got  tired  of  wri- 
ting out? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Not  at  all  ? 

A.  One  reason  was  it  was  getting  on  between  three  and  four  o'clock,  and  I 
was  directed  to  cut  down  toward  the  last,  and  I  did  so  more  toward  the  last 
than  I  did  in  the  earlier  parts  of  the  speech. 

Q.  In  order  to  be  ready  for  the  press? 

A.  In  order  to  be  ready  for  the  morning  press. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.     We  object  to  this  report  as  a  report  of  the  Pre.-^ideut's  speech. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr,  (to  the  witness.)  Mark  it  with  your  initials  and  leave 
it  on  the  table.  [The  witness  marked  with  his  initials  "E.  D.  S."  the  copy  of 
the  Cleveland  Herald  referred  to  by  him.j  I  forgot  to  ask  you  what  are  the 
politics  of  the  Herald. 

The  W1TNK8S.  It  was  at  that  time  what  we  called  "Johnson  Republican." 
Some  called  it  "  Post  Office  Republican."  The  editor  of  the  Herald  had  the 
post  office  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  propose  now,  sir,  to  offer  as  the  foundation,  as  the 
one  upon  which  I  rely,  the  Leader's  report  as  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Hudson,  the 
first  witness  as  to  this  speech. 

Mr.  EvAHTS.  That  we  object  to  ;  and  the  grounds  of  objection,  made  mani- 
fest doubtless  to  the  observation  of  the  Chief  Justice  and  the  senators,  are 
greatly  enhanced  when  I  find  that  the  managers  are  in  possession  of  the  origi- 
iiial  minutes  of  a  short-hand  reporter  of  the  whole  speech,  and  his  transcript 
imade  therefrom  and  sworn  to  by  him.  We  submit  that  to  substitute  for  this 
ef/Jdeuce  of  the  whole  speech,  upon  this  mode  of  authentication,  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Hudson,  upon  the  plan  and  theory  as  testified  to  by  him,  is  contrary  to 
the  first  principles  of  justice  in  evidence.  He  has  not  said  how  much  is  his  and 
how  .mach  is  the  reporter  Johnson's,  and  it  is  in  considerable  part  condensed,  a 
statemeait  of  "drift,"  determinc^d  by  circumstances,  not  of  the  President's  utter- 
ance. The  same  objection  will  be  made  if  this  second  or  Cleveland  Herald 
report  is  presented. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  propose  to  argue  the  question.  Suppose  wn 
were  trying  day  other  case  for  substantive  words  ;  would  not  this  be  asufiicient 
proof?  I  do  not  propose  to  withdraw  the  otljer  re})ort  of  Mr.  ^IcEwen.  I  pro- 
pose to  put  it  in,  subject  to  comment,  to  be  read  if  these  gentlemen  desire  it 
read,  and  tlie  other  report,  .so  that  we  may  have  all  three  reports  :  the  Post 
Office  report,  the  Republican  report,  and  the  Democratic  report.  A  natural  lean- 
ing makes  me  lean  to  this  particular  report  as  the  one  which  I  mean  shall  be 
the  standard  report,  because  it  is  sworn  to  expressly  by  the  party  as  having 
been  written  down  by  himself,  published  by  himself,  and  corrected  by  himself, 
and  I  am  only  surprised  that  there  should  be  objection  to  it.  , 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  Nothing  can  better  manifest,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  the  soundness 
9f  our  objection  than  the  statement  of  the  manager.  He  selects  by  preference 
a  report  made  by  and  through  tfie  agency  of  political  hostility,  and  on  the  plan 
of  condensation,  .'ind  on  the  method  of  condensing  anolhtir  man's  notes,  the  amount 
and  quality  relatively  not  being  discerned,  instead  of  a  sworn  report  by  a  pho- 
nographer  who  took  (^very  word  and  brings  his  original  notes  transcribed,  and 
brings  his  transcripti<Hi,  and  swears  to  their  accuracy  ;  and  here  deliberately,  in 
the  face  of  tbis  testimony  as  to  what  was  said,  thus  authentically  taken  and 
authentically  preserved  and  brought  into  court  to  he  verified,  tlie  honorable  mana- 
ger proposes  to  present,  as  of  the  speech  in  its  production,  the  notes  framed  and 
published  in  the  motive,  and  with  the  feeling  and  under  the  influence  and  iu 
the  method,  that  has  been  stated.  We  object  to  it  as  evidence  of  the  words 
spoken. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If,  Mr.  President  and   Senators,  I  had  not  lived  too 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  323 

long  in  this  world  to  be  astouisbed  at  anything,  I  should  have  been  surprised  at 
the  tone  iu  which  this  proposition  is  argued.  Do  I  keep  back  from  these  gen- 
tlemen anybody's  report?  Do  I  not  give  them  all  reports — everything  1  can 
lay  my  hand  on  ?  Am  I  obliged  to  go  into  the  enemy's  camp  1  Shall  I  not  use 
the  report  of  my  friends  and  not  of  my  enemies,  and  then  give  them  an  oppor- 
tnnity  of  having  the  reports  of  my  enemies  to  correct  that  of  my  friends  1  Is 
all  virtue,  all  propriety  in  the  democratic  report  ?  Can  that  never  be  wrong  ? 
At  one  time  1  tliiuk  President  Johnson,  if  I  remember,  would  not  like  to  have 
me  put  in  the  "  World's"  report  of  him ;  and  when  they  changed  exactly  I  do 
not  know.  I  have  offered  this  report — why?  Because  this  is  the  fullest  com- 
plete report.  The  reason  why  I  did  not  rely  upon  Mr.  McEwen's  report  is  that 
he  testified  on  the  stand  that  he  got  tired  and  went  away  and  did  not  report  the 
whole  speech  ;  but  this  is  a  report  of  the  whole  speech,  and  the  only  report 
which  purports  t(j  be  a  report  of  the  whole  speech.  Mr.  Stark's  report,  as  he 
says,  left  out  a  portion.  Mr.  McEwen  expressly  swears  he  left  out  a  portion. 
Hence  I  cannot  put  them  in,  or  if  I  offered  to  do  so  I  should  be  met  with  the 
objection,  "  You  do  not  put  in  the  whole  speech."  I  do  choose  the  report  Avhich 
the  witness  swears  is  a  complete  report  of  the  speech  except  so  far  as  he  synop- 
sized ;  and  then,  so  far  as  the  other  two  reports  go,  I  bring  them  in  here  to  cor- 
rect it,  so  that  the  President  shall  take  no  detriment.  Oh,  how  he  stickles  now 
for  exactness  !  The  President  was  willing  that  Mr.  Moore  should  make  a  speech 
for  him  on  the  ISth  of  August,  and  that  went  out.  Now,  then,  hei'e  are  three 
reports,  representing  the  three  unfortunate  divisions  of  opinion  on  this  question  ; 
and  we  ofi'er  them  all  to  the  counsel.  We  say  which  we  prefer,  and  then  be 
almost  berates  us,  as  much  as  his  courtesy  will  allow  him  to  do,  because  we 
choose  our  friends,  and  I  am  glad  to  say  not  his.  The  question  is  not  of  com- 
petency but  of  weight  of  evidence,  and  has  simply  been  argued  so.  [Mr.  Evarts 
rose.]  I  ask  that  there  may  be  a  decision.  I  think  I  have  the  close  some  time, 
sir. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Not  on  our  objection. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  beg  your  pardon ;  it  is  on  my  offer. 
Mr.  Evarts.  Our  objection. 
]Mi-.  Manager  Butler.  No  ;  my  offer. 

The  Chikk  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  desire  to  be  heard  further  ? 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Does  not  the  presiding  officer  think  we  have  the  close  ? 
The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  respondent  have  not    exhausted 
their  hour. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Have  we  got  to  keep  on,  in  order  to  get  the  close, 
until  we  occupy  our  whole  hour  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  of  the  Senate  is  that  each  side  shall  have 
an  hour. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Be  it  so.  I  can  even  get  on  will*  that  rule. 
Mr.  Evarts.  Discredit  is  now  thrown  upon  the  most  authentic  report,  first 
by  an  observation  that  it  omits  a  part  of  the  speech,  and  secondly  by  a  sugges- 
tion that  it  has  but  democratic  responsibility.  There  you  have  it  fairly  and 
squarely,  that  it  is  not  on  the  accuracy  of  phonography  nor  on  the  honesty  of 
transcription,  but  on  the  color  of  the  mind  through  which  the  President's  speech 
is  to  be  run,  and  by  double  condensation  reproduced  to  the  tone  and  the  temper 
of  a  party  print.  There  is  precisely  that  condensation  in  the  first  original  notes 
of  Mr.  Hudson,  and  condensation  then  from  those  notes  into  the  space  that  the 
newspaper  takes,  and  is  offered  confessedly  on  the  principle  of  selection  which 
the  learned  managers  have  adopted  of  preferring  what  they  consider  a  friendly 
report.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators,  I  have  read  neither  of  them.  I  did 
not  know  before  that  the  question  of  whether  the  authenticity  of  stenography 
was  reliable  depended  upon  the  political  opinions  of  the  stenographer.  We 
submit  that  there  is  no  proper  evidence ;  there  is  no  living  witness  that  by  mem- 


324  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

oiy  can  produce  the  President's  speech,  and  there  is  no  snch  authentication  of 
notes  in  any  case  but  Mr.  McEweu's  that  makes  the  published  speeches  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  shall  no.t  debate  the  matter  further.  I  rise  simply 
to  say  that  I  have  made  no  such  propo.-^ition.  I  think  this  is  an  accurate  report 
80  far  as  we  have  put  it  into  the  articles.  It  is  an  accurate  report,  a  sworn 
accurate  report,  and  by  a  man  whom  we  cau  trust  and  do  trust.  The  others, 
we  think,  are  just  as  accurate  perhaps ;  that  we  do  not  go  into ;  we  simply  put 
them  forward,  so  that  if  there  is  any  change  the  President  may  have  the  benefit 
of  it.  He  comes  in  here  in  his  answer  and  says  that  we  Avill  not  give  him  the 
full  benefit  of  all  he  said  ;  and  then,  when  we  take  great  pains  here  to  bring 
everybody  that  made  a  report  that  we  can  hear  of  in  this  case  and  we  offer  them 
all,  he  says  we  must  take  a  given  one.  To  that  we  answer  we  take  the  one  that 
has  the  whole  speech.  And  now  I  will  test  the  question  :  if  the  gentlemen  will 
agree  not  to  object  to  McEwen's  report  because  it  is  not  a  report  of  the  whole 
speech,  I  will  take  that. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  will  not  make  that  objection. 

Mr.  IManager  Butlkr.  Very  good  ;  put  it  in  then. 

The  Chief  Justice  The  honorable  manager  then  withdraws  his  proposition 
to  read  the  Cleveland  Leader  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  I  am  going  to  read  this  and  put  in  both  th 
others  as  evidence,  with  your  leave.     I  will  take  this  as  the  standard  copy. 

Mr.  Howard.  Mr.  President,  if  the  managers  have  no  obj.ection  to  it,  I 
desire  to  move  that  the  trial  be  postponed  until  to-morrow  at  the  usual  hour, 
for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  Senate  to  transact  some  business. 

Mr.  Conk  LING  and  others.  Let  us  finish  this  matter. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  withdraw  my  motion  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I\Ir.  Clerk,  will  you  have  the  kindness  to  read  this? 
(Handing  to  the  chief  clerk  the  Cleveland  Leader  of  September  4,  1866.) 

Mr.  Evar'J's.  The  honorable  managers  will  correct  us  if  we  are  in  error  in 
supposing  that  when  I  had  made  manifest  our  objections  to  the  imperfect  reports, 
as  matter  of  lawful  right  on  our  part  to  object,  the  managers  said  that  if  we 
would  not  object  to  McEwen's  for  incompleteness  they  would  put  that  in  as  the 
report  of  the  speech.     Now,  it  seems,  they  propose  to  put  the  others  in  al^o. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  want  to  be  fully  understood,  so  lh;it  we  shall 
have  no  mistake.  We  put  this  iu  as  the  standard.  We  put  in  the  other  two, 
so  that  if  the  President  comes  in  here  with  witnesses  to  say  it  is  not  true, 
(becai;se  all  things  are  possible,)  then  we  shall  have  the  additional  autlicntica- 
lion  of  the  other  two  reports. 

Mr.  Evarts.  The  learned  manager  is  familiar  enough  with  the  course  of 
trials  to  know  that  it  Avill  be  time  enough  for  him  to  bring  forth  these  additional 
copies  to  contradict  frhis  movement  of  ours  when  we  make  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  nover  knew  that  was  the  way.  Will  you  allow 
this  to  be  read,  or  do  you  still  make  any  objection  ?  I  claim  that  they  shall  all 
go  iu. 

Mr.  Evart.s.  AVe  object  to  the  two  copies  from  newspapers. 

Mr.  Manager  PjUTLEr.  Very  good.  1  ask  that  that  fjuestion  be  decided, 
then.     We  say  they  all  go  in. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  managers.)  You  offer  the  Cleveland  Leader 
first  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  offer  the  whole  three  at  once. 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  Chief  Justice  will  not  put  the  question  upon  all 
three  at  once  unless  so  directed  by  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Butleu.  Under  the  direction  of  the  presiding  officer,  I  will 
offer  first  the  Leader,  and  ask  a  vote  on  that. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  managers  offer  a  report  made  iu  the  Leader  news- 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PRESIDENT.  325 

papei"  of  Cleveland  as  evidence  in  tlic  cause.  It  appears  from  the  statement  of 
the  witness,  Hudson,  that  the  report  was  not  made  by  him  wholly  from  his 
own  notes,  but  from  his  own  notes  and  the  notes  of  another  person  whose  notoe 
are  not  produced,  nor  is  that  person  himself  produced  for  examination.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  that  paper  is  inadmissible. 
Does  any  senator -desire  a  vote  of  the  senate  on  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Dr.vke.  T  ask  for  a  vote  on  the  question,  sir, 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  supposed  this  question  was  to  be  decided  without 
debate. 

The  Chief  Justu^e.  It  is.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the 
Leader  newspaper  is  admissible  in  evidence 

Mr.  CoNiXESS  and  Mr.  Sumner  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays  ;  and  they  were 
ordered. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  Leader 
newspaper  is  admissible  in  evidence  will,  as  your  names  are  called,  answer 
"  yea;"  those  of  the  contrary  opinion,  "  nay." 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  35,  nays  11  ;  as 
follows  : 

Yr.A.s — Messrs.  Anthony.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conklin^,  Conness,  Corbett,' 
Cragiu,  Drake,  Edniuuds,  Ferry,  Fesseiideu,  Frelinghuysen,  Henderson,  Howard,  Johnson, 
Morjiau,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire, 
Poniero}-,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Van  Winkle, 
Willey,  and  Williams — 35. 

Navs — Messrs.  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fowler,  Hendricks,  Howe,  McCreery, 
Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Trumbull,  and  Vickers — 1^. 

Not  Voting — Messrs.  Bayard,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Morton,  Saulsbury,  Wade,  Wilson,  and 
Yates — 8. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  35,  and  the  nays  are  11. 
So  the  report  of  the  Leader  is  admitted  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  now  offer  also  the  report  of  Mr.  McEwen.  Is  that 
objected  to  ? 

Mr.  Evarts.  Our  former  objection.     We  make  no  additional  objection. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  I  understand  that  is  in  evidence.  I  now  offer 
the  report  of  Mr.  Stark  in  the  Cleveland  Herald.     Is  there  any  objection  to  that  ? 

Mr.  Evarts.  The  same,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Now  I  will  read  the  report  in  the  Leader,  as  it  is  a 
short  one. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  understand  that  the  honorable  managers  are  about  to  read 
these  speeches  from  the  reports. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Unless  the  reading  may  be  dispensed  with  and  they 
be  put  in  print. 

Mr.  JoHNSOiv.  Let  them  be  considered  as  read. 

Mr.  Stamsery.  We  do  not  want  them  read. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well,  then,  I  do  not  want  the  reading.  They 
will  be  taken  as  read,  and  printed.     ["Agreed."] 

The  reports  thus  put  in  evidence  are  as  follows  : 

[From  the  Cleveland  Leader.] 
Prcsideiit  Johnson's  speech. 

Fellow-Citizexs  :  It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  speech  that  I  now  appear  before 
you.  I  am  aware  of  the  great  curiosity  which  prevails  to  see  strangers  who  liave  notoriety 
and  distinction  in  the  country.  I  know  a  large  number  of  you  desire  to  see  General  Grant, 
and  to  hear  what  he  has  to  say.  [A  voice  :  "  Ttu-ee  cheers  for  Grant."]  But  you  cannot 
626  him  to-night.  He  is  extremely  ill.  I  repeat  I  am  not  before  you  now  to  make  a  speech, 
but  simply  to  make  your  acquaintance — to  say  how  are  yon  and  bid  you  good-bye.  We  are 
on  our  way  to  Chicago,  to  participate  in  or  witness  the  layiug  of  the  corner-stone  of  a  mon- 
ument to  the  memory  of  a  distinguished  fellow-citizen  who  is  now  no  more.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary for  me  to  mention  the  name  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  to  the  people  of  Ohio.  [Applause.] 
I  am  free  to  say  I  am  flattered  by  the  demonstrations  I  have  witnessed,  and  being  flattered, 


326  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

I  don't  mean  to  think  it  personal,  but  as  an  evidence  of  ^vliat  is  pervading  the  pnblic  mind, 
and  this  demonstration  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  indication  of  the  latent  sentiment 
or  feeling  of  the  great  masses  of  the  people  with  regard  to  this  great -question. 
*  I  come  before  you  as  an  American  citizen  simply,  and  not  as  the  Chief  Magistrate  clothed 
in  the  insignia  and  para])hernalia  of  state,  being  an  inhabitant  of  a  .State  in  this  Union  ; 
I  know  it  has  been  said  that  I  was  an  alien,  (laughter,)  and  that  I  did  not  reside  in  one  of 
the  States  of  the  Union,  and  therefore  I  could  not  be  the  Chief  Magistrate,  tliongh  the 
Constitution  declares  that  I  must  be  a  citizen  to  occupy  that  office.  Tiierefore,  all  tliat  was* 
lU'cessary  to  depose  its  occujiant  was  to  declare  the  office  vacant,  or  under  a  pretext  to  prefer 
articles  of  impeachment.  And  thus  the  individual  who  occupies  the  Chief  Magistracy  was 
to  be  disposed  of  and  driven  from  power.  - 

There  was,  two  years  ago,  a  ticket  before  you  for  the  presidency.  I  was  placed  upon 
that  ticket  -with  a  distinguished  citizen,  now  no  more.  [Voices — '"It's  a  pity;"  "Too 
bad;"  "Unfortunate."]  Yes,  I  know  there  are  some  who  say,  "Unfortunate."  Yes, 
unfortunate  for  some  that  CTod  rules  on  high  and  deals  in  justice.  [Clieers.]  Yes, 
unfortunate!  The  ways  of  Providence  are  mysterious  and  incomprehensible,  controlling 
all  those  who  exclaim,  "Unfortunate."  "Bully  for  you."]  I  was  going  to  say, 
my  countrymen,  a  short  time  since  I  was  elected  and  placed  upon  the  ticket.  There 
Vi-as  a  platform  proclaimed  and  adopted  by  those  who  placed  me  upon  it.  Notwith- 
standing a  mendacious  press  ;  notwithstanding  a  subsidized  gang  of  hirelings  who  have  not 
ceased  to  traduce  me,  I  have  discharged  all  my  official  duties,  and  fultilled  my  pledges.  And 
I  say  here  to-night  that  if  my  predecessor  had  lived,  the  vials  of  wrath  -would  have  poure:! 
out  upon  him.  [Cries,  "Never!"  "Never!"  and  three  cheersfor  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.]  I  came  here  as  I  was  passing  along,  and  having  been  called  upon  for  the  pur- 
pose of  exchanging  views,  and  ascertaining,  if  we  could,  who  was  wrong.  [Cries,  "You 
are!"]  That  was  my  object  in  appearing  before  you  to-night.  I  want  to  say  that  I  have 
lived  among  the  American  people,  and  have  represented  them  in  some  public  capacity  for 
the  last  twenty-live  years.  Where  is  the  man  or  the  woman  who  can  place  his  linger  upon 
one  single  act  of  mine,  deviating  from  any  pledges  of  mine  or  in  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  country?     [Cheers  and  cries  of  "New  Orleans!"]  • 

Who  is  he — what  language  does  he  speak? — what  religion  does  he  profess — that  can  come 
and  place  his  finger  upon  one  pledge  I  ever  violated,  or  one  principle  I  ever  proved  false  to? 
[Voice,  "New  Orleans!"  Another,  "Why  don't  you  hang  Jetf.  Davis  ?"]  Hang  Jeff. 
Davis?  [Shouts  and  cries  of  "  Down  with  him  I"  J  Hang  Jeff.  Davis  ?  [Voice,  "Hang 
Wendell  Phillips!"]  Why  don't  j/om  hang  him?  [Cries  of  "  Give  us  an  opportunity!"] 
Haven't  you  got  the  court?  Haven't  you  got  the  Attorney  General?  Who  is  your  Chief 
Justice,  who  has  refused  to  sit  on  his  trial  ?  [Groans  and  cheers.  ]  I  am  not  the  Chief  Jus- 
tice! I  am  not  the  Attorney  General!  I  am  no  jury  !  But  I'll  tell  you  what  I  did  do.  I 
called  upon  your  Congress,  that  is  trying  to  break  up  the  government.  [Hisses  and  cries  of 
"A  lie  I"  Great  confusion.  Voice,  "Don't  get  mad!"]  I  am  not  mad.  [Hisses.]  I 
will  tell  you  who  is  mad.  "Whom  the  gods  want  to  destroy  they  first  make  mad."  Did 
your  Congress  order  any  of  them  to  be  tried  .'  [Three  cheers  for  Congress.]  Then,  fellow- 
citizens,  we  might  as  well  allay  our  passion  and  permit  reason  to  resume  her  empire  and 
prevail.  In  presenting  the  few  remarks  that  I  designed  to  make,  my  intention  was  to 
address  myself  to  your  common  sense,  your  judgment,  your  better  feelings,  not  to  the  pas- 
sion and  malignancy  of  j'our  hearts.  [Voice,  "  How  about  Moses?"]  This  was  my  object 
in  presenting  myself  on  this  occasion,  and  to  say  "how  d'ye"  and  "good-bye."  In  the 
assembly  here  to-night  the  remark  has  been  made  "traitor!"  Traitor,  my  countrymen ! 
Will  you  hear  me  ?  [Cries,  "  Yes !"]  And  will  you  hear  me  for  my  cause  and  for  the  Con- 
stitution of  my  country  ?     [  "  Yes  !     Yes  !     Go  on  !"] 

I  want  to  know  when  or  where  or  under  wliat  circumstances  Andrew  Johnson,  not  as 
Executive,  but  in  any  capacity,  ever  deserted  atiy  principle,  or  violatt^d  the  Constitution  of 
this  country.  [Never!  never!]  Let  me  ask  this  large  and  intelligent  audience  if  yourSec- 
retfuy  of  .State,  who  served  four  years  under  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  who  was  idaced  upon  tlio 
butcher's  block  as  it  were  and  hacked  and  gashed  all  to  jiieces,  scarred  by  the  assassin's 
knife — when  he  turned  traitor?  [Cries  of  "Never!"]  If  I  were  disposed  io  play  the  ora- 
tor and  deal  in  declamation,  e^•(■n  to-night  I  would  imitate  one  of  the  ancii'ut  tragedies,  and 
would  take  Mr.  Seward,  bring  him  before  you,  and  point  you  to  the  hacks  and  scars  upon 
his  person.  ["  Voice,  (iod  bless  him  !  "]  I  would  exhibit  the  bloody  garments  saturated 
with  gore  from  his  gajiing  wounds.  Then  I  would  ask  you,  who  is  the  traitor?  [Voice: 
"Thad.  Stevens!  "]  Why  don't  you  hang  Thad.  Stevens  and  Wendell  Phillips?  [Cheers.] 
I  have  been  fighting  traitors  in  the  south.  They  have  been  whipped  and  crushed.  'Jliey 
acknowledge  their  defeat  and  acce|)t  the  terms  of  the  Constitution.  And  now,  as  I  go  round 
the  circle,  having  fought  traitors  at  the  south,  I  am  ]>repared  to  fight  them  at  the  nortli, 
[Cheers,]  God  being  willing,  with  your  help.  [Cries,  "We  won't  give  it."]  They  will  be 
crushed  north  and  this  glorious  L'nion  of  ours  will  be  jireserved.  [Cheers.]  I  do  not  come 
here  as  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  twenty-five  States  out  of  thirty-six.     [Cheers] 

I  come  here  to-night  with  the  tlag  of  my  country  and  the  constellation  of  thirty-six  stars 
untarnished.  Are  you  for  dividing  this  country?  [Cries,  "No."]  Then  I  am  President, 
and  President  0*'  the  whole  United  States.     [Cheers.]     I  will  tell  you  another  thing.     I 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  327 

trnderstand  he  discordant  notes  in  this  crowd  to-niofht.  He  who  is  opposed  to  the  restora- 
tion of  the  o;overnment  and  the  Union  of  tlio  States  is  a  <Treater  traitor  tlian  Jeff.  Davis  or 
Wendell  Phillips.  [Loud  cheers.]  I  am  aj^ainst  both  of  them.  [Cries,  "Give  it  to  them."] 
Some  of  yon  talk  about  traitors  in  the  south,  who  have  not  coiuap^e  to  go  away  from  your 
homes  to  figfht  them.  [Lauq:hter  and  cheers.]  Tlie  courageous  men,  Grant,  Sherman,  Far- 
va<Tut,  and  the  long;  list  of  the  distintjuished  sons  of  the  Union,  were  in  the  field,  and  led  on 
their  gallant  hosts  to  couqiiest  and  to  victory,  while  you  remained  cowardly  at  home. 
[Applause  ;  bully.]  Now  when  these  brave  men  have  returned  home,  many  of  whom  have 
left  an  arm  or  a  lesc  or  their  blood  upon  many  a  battle-field,  they  found  j'ou  at  home  specu- 
latiup;  aud  committing  frauds  upon  the  government.  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  You  pretend 
now  to  have  great  respect  and  sympathy  for  the  poor,  brave  fellow  who  has  left  an  arm  on 
the  battld-field.  [Cries,  "Is  this  dignified  ?  "J  I  understand  you.  You  may  talk  about 
the  dignity  of  the  President.  [Cries,  "How  was  it  about  his  making  a  speecli  on  the  2v!d 
of  February  ?  "]  I  have  been  with  you  on  the  battle-fields  of  this  couwtry,  and  I  can  tell 
you  furthermore  to-night,  who  have  to  pay  these  brave  men  who  shed  their  blood.  You 
speculated,  and  now  the  great  mass  of  the  people  have  got  to  work  it  out.     [Cbeers.  ] 

It  is  time  that  the  great  mass  of  the  American  people  should  understand  what  your  designs 
are.  [A  voice,  "What  did  General  Butler  say?"]  What  did  General  Butler  say  ?  [Hisses.] 
What  did  Grant  say?  [cheers]  and  what  does  General  Grant  say  about  General  Butler? 
[Laughter  aud  cheers.]  What  does  General  Sherman  say?  [A  voice,  "What  does  Sheri- 
dan say?  New  Orleans  !  New  Orleans  !"]  General  Sheridan  says  that  he  is  for  the  resto- 
ration of  the  government  that  General  Sheridan  fought  for.  [Bully.]  But,  fellow-citizens, 
let  this  all  pass.  I  care  not  for  my  dignity.  There  is  a  certain  portion  of  our  countrymen 
will  respect  a  citizen  wherever  he  is  entitled  to  respect.  [A  voice,  "That's  so."]  There  is 
another  class,  that  have  no  respect  for  themselves,  and  consequently  they  cannot  respect  any 
one  else.  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  I  know  a  man  and  a  gentleman  whenever  I  meet  him. 
I  have  only  to  look  in  his  face;  and  if  I  was  to  see  yours  by  the  light  of  day  I  do  not  doubt 
but  that  I  should  see  cowardice  and  treachery  written  upon  it.  [Laughter  and  cheers.] 
Come  out  here  where  I  can  see  you.  [Cheers.]  If  you  ever  shoot  a  man  you  will  do  it  in 
the  dark,  and  pull  the  trigger  when  no  one  is  by  to  see.  [Cheers.]  I  understand  traitors. 
I  have  been  fighting  them  at  the  southern  end  of  the  line,  aud  we  are  now  fighting  them  in 
the  other  direction.  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  I  came  here  neither  to  criminate  nor  recrimi- 
nate, but  when  attacked,  my  plan  is  to  defend  myself.     [Cheers.] 

When  encroached  upon,  I  care  not  from  what  quarter  it  comes,  it  will  meet  with  resistance. 
As  Chief  Magistrate,  I  felt,  after  taking  the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  and  when  I  saw 
encroachments  upon  your  constitutional  rights,  I  dared  to  sound  the  tocsin  of  alarm.  [Three 
cheers  for  Andrew  Johnson.]  Then,  if  this  be  right,  the  head  aud  front  of  my  offending  is 
in  telling  when  the  Constitution  of  our  country  was  trampled  upon.  Let  me  say  to  those 
who  thirst  for  more  blood,  who  are  still  willing  to  sacrifice  human  life,  if  you  want  a  victim, 
and  the  country  requires  it,  erect  your  altar  aud  lay  me  upon  it  to  pour  the  last  libation  to 
human  freedom.  [Loud  applause.]  I  love  my  country.  Every  public  act  of  my  life  testi- 
fies that  it  is  so.  Where  is  the  man  that  can  put  his  finger  upon  any  one  act  of  mine  that  goes 
to  prove  to  the  contrary?  And  what  is  my  offending?  [Voice,  "  Because  you  are  not  a  rad- 
ical," and  cries  of  "  Veto !"]  Somebody  says  "Veto .'"  Veto  of  what is  called  the  Freed- 

meu's  Bureau  bill?  I  can  tell  you  what  it  is.  Before  the  rebellion  commenced,  there  were 
4,000,0U0  of  slaves  and  about  340,000  white  people  living  in  the  south.  These  latter  paid 
expenses,  bought  the  lands  and  cultivated  them,  and,  after  the  crops  were  gathered,  pocketed 
the  profits.  That's  the  way  the  thing  stood  up  to  the  rebellion.  The  rebellion  commenced, 
the  slaves  were  liberated,  and  then  came  up  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill.  This  provides  for 
the  appointment  of  agents  and  sub-agents  in  all  States,  counties,  and  school  districts,  who 
have  power  to  make  contracts  for  the  freedmen  and  to  hire  them  out,  and  to  use  the  military 
power  to  carry  them  into  execution.  The  cost  of  this  to  the  people  was  $I'2.t)00,000  at  the 
beginning.  The  further  expense  would  be  greater,  and  you  are  to  be  taxed  for  it.  That  is 
why  I  vetoed  it.  I  might  refer  to  the  civil-rights  bill,  which  is  even  more  atrocious.  I  tell 
you,  my  countrymen,  that  though  the  powers  of  hell  and  Thad.  Stevens  and  his  gang  were 
by,  they  could  not  turn  me  from  my  purpose.  There  is  no  power  that  could  turn  me  except 
you  and  the  God  who  spoke  me  into  existence. 

In  conclusion,  he  said  that  Congress  had  taken  much  pains  to  poison  their  constituents 
against  him.  But  what  had  Congress  done  ?  Have  they  done  anything  to  restore  the  Union 
of  these  States  ?  No  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  had  done  everything  to  prevent  it ;  and,  because 
he  stood  now  where  he  did  when  the  rebellion  commenced,  he  had  been  denounced  as  a  traitor. 
M'ho  had  nm  greater  risks  or  made  greater  sacrifices  than  himself?  But  Congress,  factious 
and  domineering,  had  taken  to  poisoning  the  minds  of  the  American  people.  It  was  with 
them  a  question  of  power.  Every  friend  of  theirs  who  holds  an  office  us  assessor,  collector, 
or  postmaster,  [A  voice — "  Turn  Benedict  out !"]  wanted  to  retain  his  place.  Kotation  in 
office  used  to  be  thought  a  good  doctrine  by  Washington,  Jefferson,  and  Adams;  and  Andrew 
Jackson,  God  bless  him,  thought  so.  [Applause.]  This  gang  of  office-holders — these  blood- 
suckers and  cormorants — had  got  fat  on  the  country.  You  have  got  them  over  your  district. 
Hence  you  see  a  system  of  legislation  proposed  that  these  men  shall  not  be  turned  out ;  and 


328  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  Presitlent,  tlie  only  channel  through  which  they  can  he  reached,  is  called  a  tyrant.  He 
thought  the  time  had  ooine  when  those  who  had  enjoyed  fat  ofHces  for  foiir  years  should  give 
way  for  those  who  had  fought  for  the  country.  Hence  it  was  seen  why  he  was  assailed  and 
traduced.  He  had  stood  by  them  in  the  field,  and,  God  willing,  he  would  continue  to  stand 
by  them.  He  had  turned  aside  from  the  thread  of  his  remarks  to  notice  the  insult  sought  to 
be  given  him.  When  an  insult  offered  he  would  resent  it  in  a  pro])er  manner.  IJut  he  was 
free  to  say  lie  had  no  revengeful  or  resentful  feelings.  All  he  wanted  when  the  war  was  over 
and  peace  had  come  was  for  patriotic  and  Christian  men  to  rally  round  the  flag  of  the  country 
in  a  fraternal  hug,  and  resolved  that  all  shall  perish  rather  than  that  the  Union  shall  not  be 
restored.  While  referring  to  the  question  of  suffrage,  some  one  in  the  crowd  asked  him, 
"How  about  Louisaua  ?"  To  which  he  responded,  "Let  the  negroes  vote  in  Ohio  before 
you  talk  about  their  voting  in  Louisiana."  [Laughter  and  cries  of  "  Good  !"]  "  'J'ake  the 
beam  out  of  your  own  eye  before  you  see  the  mote  in  your  brother's."  [Renewed  laughter.] 
In  conclusion,  after  some  further  remarks,  he  invoked  God's  best  blessings  on  his  hearers. 
[Applause.] 

[D.  C.  McEwen's  report  of  the  Cleveland  speech.] 

Fellow-Citizens  of  the  City  of  Clevel.\nd  :  In  being  presented  here  to-night,  not- 
for  the  purpose  of  making  a  speech,  I  am  well  aware  of  the  great  curiosity  that  e.xists  on  the 
part  of  strangers  in  reference  to  seeing  individuals  who  are  here  amongst  them  who  have  a 
notoriety  and  distinction  in  the  country.  Most  of  the  persons  here  to-night — [A  voice, 
"Louder  !"]  W\41,  you  must  remember  there  are  a  good  many  people  here  to-night,  and  it 
requires  a  pretty  strong  voice  to  reach  the  utmost  verge  of  this  audience  to-night,  and  espe- 
cially one  who,  from  speaking  for  the  last  two  or  three  days,  has  to  some  extent  marred  or 
destroyed  what  little  voice  he  had.  But  for  the  time  I  consume,  if  you  will  bear  with  me,  I 
will  try  and  make  myself  heard,  notwithstanding  the  hoarseness  under  which  I  labor.  What 
I  was  going  to  say,  though,  is,  I  know  that  a  large  number  are  here  who  would  desire  to  see 
General  Grant,  and  to  hear  what  he  might  say.  [A  voice,  "That's  so."]  But  the  fact  is 
that  General  Grant  is  extremely  ill.  His  health  will  not  permit  of  his  appearing  before  this 
audience  here  to-night.  It  would  be  much  more  pleasure  to  me  to  hear  him  here  before  you, 
and  to  hear  what  he  might  have  to  say,  than  to  give  a  speech  of  my  own,  or  to  give  the  rea- 
sons of  his  absence  on  this  occasion.  tSo  then  it  will  not  be  expected  he  will  be  here.  He 
will  not  address  you  to-night.  You  cannot  see  him  to-night,  so  far  as  that  goes,  on  account 
of  his  extreme  indisposition. 

Fellow-citizens,  in  being  before  you  to-night  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  speech, 
but  simply  to  make  your  acqiiaintance,  and  while  I  am  telling  you  "  How  do  you  do,"  at 
the  very  same  time  to  tell  you  "  Good  bye."  We  are  here  to-day  on  our  tour  to  a  visit  for 
the  purpose  of  participating  in  or  witnessing  the  laying  of  the  chief  corner-stone  to  a  monu- 
ment to  be  erected  to  one  of  our  distinguished  fellow-citizens,  who  is  no  more.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  me  to  mention  the  name  of  IStepheu  A.  Douglas  to  the  people  of  Ohio.  [Cheers.  ] 
It  is  a  name  familiar  to  all;  and,  being  on  a  tour  to  participate  in  the  ceremonies,  passing 
through  this  city  and  section  of  country,  and  witnessing  the  demonstration  or  mamfestatious 
of  regard  and  respect  which  have  been  made,  I  am  free  to  say  to  you  that  so  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned— and  I  think  I  may  speak  for  all  those  who  accompany  me — that  we  fed  extremely 
flattered  and  gratified  at  tiie  demonstrations  that  have  been  made  by  the  people  of  the  country 
through  which  we  have  jiassed.  And  in  being  flattered  I  want  at  the  same  time  to  state  that 
I  don't  consider  that  entirely  personal,  but  as  an  evidence  of  what  is  pervading  the  public 
mind,  that  there  is  a  great  issue  before  the  country  that  is  not  yet  settled,  and  these  demon- 
strations are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  indication  of  a  latent  sentiment  of  the  feeling  of 
the  great  mass  of  tlie  people  which  is  being  developed  in  reference  to  the  proper  settlement 
of  those  great  questions,     [CHieers.] 

And  in  coming  before  you  to-night,  I  come  before  you  an  American  citizen.  Not  simply 
as  the  Cjiief  Miigi.^trate  rec(.iving,  and  going  along  as  an  oflicer  with  the  insignia  and  para- 
phernalia of  State,  but  appear  before  yuu  as  a  fellow-eitizcn,  being  an  individual  of  on(!  of 
the  States  of  this  Union.  I  know  that  it  has  been  said  and  contended  for  on  the  part  of  some 
that  I  was  an  alien— [laughter,  and  cries  of  "  Shame  "] — that  I  did  not  reside  in  one  of  the 
States  (jf  the  Union,  and  tiierefore  I  could  not  be  Chief  Magistrate,  though  the  Constitution 
declared  that  I  was.  And  all  that  was  necessary  was  simply  to  introduce  a  resolution  declar- 
ing the  oftice  vacant  or  deposing  the  occuj)autor  under  pretext  to  ])reter  articles  of  impeach- 
ment, and  that  the  individual  wlio  occupied  the  Chief  Magistraey  was  to  be  disposed  of  and 
(driven  frDUi  power.  [Cries  of  "Never."]  But,  fellow-citizens,  but  a  short  time  since  you 
had  a  ticket  before  you  lor  the  Presideni'y  and  Vice-Presidency.  I  was  jflaced  upon  that 
ticket  with  a  distinguished  fellow-citizcMi  who  is  novv  no  more.  Yes,  I  kiio\v  there  are  some 
that  will  coiuplain.  Unfortunate!  Vcs,  unfortunate  for  some  that  (iod  rules  on  high  and 
deals  in  right.  Yes,  unfortunate  that  the  ways  of  Providence  are  mysterious  and  incompre- 
hensible, controlling  all  these  who  exclaim  "unfortunate."  [Voices,  "]?ullyfor  you."]  I 
was  going  to  say,  my  countiynien,  but  a  short  lime  since  I  was  selected  and  placed  upouthu 
ticket ;  and  there  was  a  platform  proclaimed  and  adopted  by  those  who  placed  me  upon  it. 

And  now,  notwithstanding  [.']  a  subsidized  gang  of  hirelings  (Cheers)  [and  traduceis]  I 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  329 

[havo  discliargod  all  my  official  duties.]  And  I  say  here,  if  my  predecessor  liad  lived,  the 
vials  of  wrath  would  have  been  poured  out  upon  hiui.  [Cheers.  Cries  of  "Never;"  three 
cheers  for  the  Cono^ress  of  the  United  States?]  I  came  here  to-nij^htiu  passing  alonp,  and 
being  called  upon  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging,  to  the  extent  that  the  time  would  permit, 
of  opiuious  and  views,  and  to  ascertain,  if  we  could,  who  was  in  the  wrong.  (Laughter 
and  cries  of  "Oh,  oh.")  That  was  my  object  in  appearing  before  you  to-night,  and  I  want  to 
say  this,  that  I  have  lived  with  and  been  among  the  American  people  and  have  represented 
them  in  some  capacity  for  the  last  25  years  ;  and  where  is  the  man  living,  or  the  wouian,  in 
the  connnunity  where  I  have  lived  and  had  the  contidence  of  the  people,  that  can  place  his 
finger  upon  one  single  [?]  deviating  from  any  pledge  I  ever  made — in  violation  of  the  laws 
of  my  country  ?  [Cheers.  A  voice,  "  How  about  New  Orleans?"]  Wliere  is  ho  ?  What 
language  does  he  speak,  what  religion  does  he  profess  that  can  come  forward  iiud  place  his 
linger  upon  one  pledge  I  have  violated  or  one  principle  I  (ever;  [?]  [A  voice,  "New  Or- 
leans."] New  Orleans.  [Hang  Jetf.  Davis.]  Just  upon  that  subject — Hang  Jeff.  Davis? 
[Voices,  "No,"  and  "Down  with  him."]  ["  Hang  Wendell  Phillips."]  Hang  Jeff.  Davis  ? 
["No."]  ["Yes."]  Why  don't  yon  ?  Why  don't  you?  [A  voice,  "Ciive  us  the  oppor- 
tunity."] Haven't  you  got  the  court?  Haven't  you  got  the  Attorney  General  1  [A  voice, 
"No,  he  is  removed."]  Who  is  your  Chief  Justice  and  has  refused  to  sit  upon  tlie  trial? 
[Cheers.]  I  am  not  the  Chief  Justice  ;  I  am  not  the  prosecuting  attorney.  ["  Good,"  and 
cheers.]     I  am  not  the  jury. 

But  I  will  tell  you  what  I  did  do.  I  called  up  our  Congress  that  is  trying  to  break  up  the 
government  [A  voice,  "You  lie',"  and  cheers.  "Not  so."  Hisses.  "  Don't  get  mad,  Andy."] 
Well,  I  will  tell  you  who  is  mad.  "  Whom  the  gods  intend  to  destroy,  they  first  make  mad." 
Yes,  di3''your  Congress  order  any  of  them  to  be  tried?  [Three  cheers  for  Gen.  Grant  and 
Congress.  J  Then,  fellow-citizens,  we  might  as  well  allay  our  feelings  and  let  passion  sub- 
side and  reason  resume  her  empire  and  prevail.  [Cheers.]  lu  presenting  myself  in  the  few 
remarks  that  I  intended  to  make,  my  intention  was  to  address  myself  to  your  common  sense, 
to  your  jitdgment,  to  the  better  feeling,  not  the  passion  and  the  malignancy  of  your  hearts. 
(Cheers.)  This  was  my  object  in  presenting  myself  on  this  occasion,  and  ta  merely  tell  you 
"How  do  you  do,"  and  at  the  same  time  to  bid  you  "Good  bye."  In  this  crowd  here  to- 
night the  remark  has  been  nuide,  "Traitor,"  "Traitor!"  My  countrymen  will  you  hear 
me  ?  [Voices,  "Yes."]  And  will  you  hear  me  tbrmy  cause  and  for  the  Constitution  of  my 
country?  [Cries of  " Ye^."  I  want  to  know  when  or  where  or  under  what  circumstances 
Andrew  Johuson — not  as  Chief  Executive  but  acting  in  any  other  capacity —ever  deserted 
any  principle  or  violated  the  Constitution  of  his  country.  [Cries  of  "Never,"  and  "You 
abandoned  your  party."] 

Let  me  ask  this  large  and  intelligent  audience  here  to-night  if  your  Secretary  of  State, 
who  served  four  years  under  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  who  was  placed  upon  the  butcher's  block,  as 
it  were,  and  chopped  in  pieces,  hacked,  and  scarred  all  over  by  the  assassin's  knife,  when 
he  turned  traitor?  ["Cries  of  never."]  But  if  I  were  disposed  to  play  the  orator  and 
deal  in  declamation  here  to-night,  I  would  imitate  one  of  the  ancient  tragedies  that  we  have 
such  a  graphic  account  of — yes,  I  would  take  William  H.  Seward,  and  I  would  bring  him 
before  you,  and  would  point  you  to  the  hacks  and  scars  upon  his  person.  [A  voice,  "God 
bless  him."]  Yes,  I  would  exhilut  his  bloody  garments,  caused  by  blood  from  wounds  in- 
flicted by  the  assassin's  knife.  [Three  cheers  for  Heward.]  Yes,  I  would  unfold  his  bloody 
garments  before  you  to-night,  and  ask  who  had  conmiitted' treason.  (A  voice,  Thad.  Stevens.) 
Yes,  I  would  ask  you  whj-  Jeff.  Davis  was  not  hanged  1  [And  I  would  give  the  reason  and 
liang  Thad.  Stevens  and  Wendell  Phillips.] 

I  tell  you,  my  countrymen,  I  have  been  fighting  the  south.  They  have  been  whipped, 
they  have  been  crushed ;  and  they  are  very  willing'  to  acknowledge  their  error  and  accept  the 
t-rms  of  the  Constitution;  and  now,  as  I  go  around  the  circle,  having  fought  traitors  at  the 
south,  1  am  prepared  to  fight  traitors  at  tbe  North.  [Cheers.]  God  being  willing  with  your 
help  [Cries  "We  will  do  it,"  and  "We  won't  do  it,"]  they  will  be  crushed  North  and  Soutli, 
and  this  glorious  Union  of  ours  will  be  preserved,  and  in  coming  here  to-night  [it]  was  not 
coming  as  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  twenty -five  States.  No.  I  came  here  to-night  as  the 
Executive  of  thirty-six  States.  [Cheers.]  I  come  here  to-night  with  the  flag  of  my  country  in  my 
hand, a  constellation  of  thirty-six, not  twenty-five  stars.  [Cheers.  ]  I  come  here  to-night  with  the 
constellation  of  my  country  intact — [noise  and  confusion] — determined  to  defend  the  Constitu- 
tion of  my  country  let  the  consequences  be  what  they  may.  1  come  here  to-night  with  the 
Union,  the  entire  circle  of  the  States  [not  a  segment  of  a  circle. ]  [A  voice,  "Plow  many 
States  made  you  President?]  How  many  States  made  me  President ?  Wa'n't  you  against 
secession?  ["Yes,"]  Were  you  for  dissolving  the  Union  ?  ["No."]  Were  you  tor  dividing 
this  government?  ["No."]  Then  I  am  President,  and  I  am  President  of  the  whole  United 
States.  [Cheers.]  And  I  will  tell  you  another  thing.  I  will  tell  you  another  thing.  I  un- 
derstand the  discordant  notes  in  this  crowd  here  to-night.  And  I  will  tell  you  furthermore; 
he  tliat  is  oppo.sed  to  the  restoration  of  the  government  and  the  reunion  of  the  States  is  as 
great  a  traitor  as  Jeff.  Davis  or  Wendell  Phillips.  [Loud  cheers.]  1  am  against  both  of 
them.     [A  voice  "Give  it  to  them."]     I  am  against  both  of  them. 

I  fought  the  traitors  of  the  south,  and  I  will  now  fight  them  in  the  north.  And  I  will  tell 
you  another  thing,  I  have  been  with  them  down  there,  and  when  [?]  men  were  sleeping  oa 


330        ^  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

their  arms;  [I  know  who  was  with  them  and  about  them.]  When  some. of  you  talk  about 
traitor  iu  the  south  you  hadn't  courage  to  get  out  of  your  [closets]  but  persuaded  [somebody 
else]  to  go.  [Laughter  and  applause.]  The  courageous  men — while  Grant,  Sherman,  Far- 
ragut — the  long  list  of  the  distinguished  sons  of  the  United  States — were  in  the  field  of  bat- 
tle, leading  on  their  gallant  hosts  to  conquest  and  victory,  you  were  cowardly  at  home. 
[Cheers.]  [Cries  of  "Bully."]  And  now  when  these  brave  men  have  returned  home, 
many  of  them  leaving  an  arm  or  a  leg  or  his  blood  in  or  upon  some  battle-field,  you  were  at 
home  speculating  and  committing  frauds  upon  your  government.  [Laughter  and  cheers.] 
You  pretend  now  as  great  respect  and  sympathy  for  the  poor  brave  fellow  that  let't  his  arm 
on  the  battle-field  [voices  and  confusion]  I  understand  you.  And  you  may  talk  about  the 
dignity  of  the  President  [if  he  does  not  make  a  speech  on  the  2'-i(l  of  July  or  the  22d  of 
February.  ] 

I  have  been  with  you  (A  voice  "That  was  whisky.")  I  have  been  with  you  in  the  battle 
of  this  country.  And  I  can  tell  you  furthermore  who  has  to  pay  for  it.  These  brave  men 
shed  their  blood  ;  you  speculated  and  got  the  money,  and  now  the  great  mass  of  people  must 
work  it  out  (cheers)  [and  all  this  hanging.]  I  care  not  for  your  prejudice  ;  it  is  time  for  the 
great  mass  of  the  American  people  to  understand  what  your  designs  are.  [A  voice,  "  That's 
so,"]  and  in  addition  to  this,  the  south,  iu  proposing  to  come  to  terms,  even  proposed  to 
come  forward  and  pa.y  their  part.  (A  voice,  "Let  them  come.")  I  say  then  let  them  come. 
(A  voice,  "That's  right,")  and  these  brave  men  that  conquered  them,  and  after  having  pros- 
trated them,  [?]  (while)  these  gentlemen  with  the  heel  of  power  upon  their  necks,  what  do 
they  say?  They  do  not  say  anything  about  it. — [A  voice  —  "  What  did  General  Butler  say?'"] 
General  Butler ?  [Hisses.]  What  does  General  Grant  say?  [Cheers.]  And  what  does 
General  Grant  say  about  General  Butler  ?  [Laughter  and  applause.]  What  does  General 
Sherman  say?  (A  voice,  "What  did  General  Sheridan  say?")  General  Siieridan  says  he  is 
for  a  restoration  of  the  government.     General  Sheridan  fought  for  it.     [Cries  of  "  Bully."] 

But,  fellow-citizens,  let  this  all  pass.  I  care  not  for  my  dignity.  There  is  a  certain  por- 
tion of  our  countrymen  that  will  respect  their  fellow-citizen  whenever  he  is  entitled  to  re- 
spect, [a  voice,  "  that's  so,"  and  cheers.]  There  is  another  portion  of  them  that  have  no 
respect  for  themselves,  and  consequently  they  cannot  respect  anybody  else,  [cries  of  "  bully" 
and  cheers,  and  other  exclamations  in  the  audience.]  I  know  a  gentleman  and  a  man 
whenever  I  can  see  him.  And  furthermore,  I  know  [when  I  look  a  man  iu  the  face  and  can 
see  him] — [the  President  was  here  understood  to  express  a  wish  that  he  could  see  some  one 
in  the  crowd]  I  will  bet  now  if  there  can  be  a  light  that  cowardice  and  treachery  can  be 
seen  it.  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  Come  out  here  where  we  can  see  you.  (Cheers.)  And 
if  ever  you  shoot  a  man  you  will  shoot  in  the  dark,  and  pull  your  trigger  when  no  one  is  by. 
[Cheers.]  I  understand  traitors.  I  have  been  fighting  them  for  five  years.  We  (fought) 
it  out  on  the  southern  end  of  the  line,  and  now  we  are  going  to  go  the  other  direction.  And 
this  man,  such  a  one  as  insulted  me  to-night,  when  you  [?]  you  will  see  that  lie  has  ceased 
to  be  a  man.  But  in  ceasing  to  be  a  man  he  shrank  into  the  dimensions  of  a  reptile.  [Cheers.] 
And  having  so  shrank,  as  an  honest  man  I  will  tread  upon  him.  I  came  here  to-night 
neither  to  criminate  nor  to  recriminate ;  but  when  provoked,  my  nature  is  not  to  (advance,) 
but  it  is  to  defend.  [Cheers.]  And  when  encroached  upon,  I  care  not  from  what  quarter 
it  comes,  it  is  entitled  to  resistance — [as  resistance  to  oppression.] 

As  your  Chief  Magistrate  [have  I  felt  lor  taking  the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  my 
country,  after  I  saw  the  encroachments  of  the  enemy  upon  your  constitutional  rights.]  I 
saw  the  citadel  of  liberty  encroached  upon,  and  as  an  honest  man,  and  being  iilaced  there  as 
your  sentinel,  I  have  dared  to  sound  the  tocsin  of  alarm.  (A  voice — "God  bless  Andrew 
Johnson.")  Should  I  have  ears  and  not  hear?  Should  I  have  a  tongue  and  not  speak? 
(Voices — "No,  no.")  Then  if  this  be  right,  the  head  and  front  of  my  ofiending  is  in  [say- 
ing] when  the  Constitution  of  my  country  was  trampled  upon.  [A  voice — "  Bully."]  And 
let  me  say  to-night,  though  my  [head]  has  been  threatened,  though  it  has  been  said  that  my 
blood  is  to  be  slied — [A  voice — "  I  can't  see  it"] — let  me  say  to  those  that  thirst  for  my 
blood — (A  voice — "  There  is  better  blood  than  yours  shod") — let  me  saj-  to  those  who  are 
still  willing  to  sacrifice  hunum  life,  let  me  saj'  to  those,  if  you  want  a  victim,  and  my  coun- 
try reiiuires  it,  erect  your  altar  (A  voice — "  Bully  for  you.")  [The  confusion  prevented  the 
reporter  from  hearing  the  remainder  of  the  sentence  save  tlie  words  "and  the  individual  who 
addresses  you  to-night."]  Erect  your  altar  if  you  still  tliirst  for  blood.  (Cries  of  "  Never.") 
And  if  you  want  it,  take  out  the.  individual  who  addresses  you.  lay  him  ujkui  your  altar,  and 
the  bkmd  that  now  warms  and  aTiiniates  his  exi.'^tence  shall  he  j)oured  out  us  the  last  libation 
to  hmnan  freedom.  (Loud  ap|ilause. )  1  love  my  country  [ovt^r  jiopularity]  and  all  my 
life  testifies  that  it  is  so.  (A  voict — "'i'hat  is  so.")  Where  is  the  man  that  [used  to  be] 
toiling  for  a  home  and  abiding  place  for  his  children  that  can  look  Andrew  Johnson  iu  the 
face  and  say  that  he  was  not  his  tViend  >  Where  is  the  nuin  that  has  participated  iu  any  and 
all  our  wars,  since  our  war  with  Mexico  down  to  the  present  time,  that  can  i)ut  his  finger 
upon  any  one  act  that  goes  to  prove  [but  \vhat  ho  stood  at  all  times  for  the  country  ?]  (A 
voice — "That  is  so.")  Tiien  what  is  my  offending?  [A  voice — "Because  you  are  not  a 
radical."]     (Cries  of  "Veto.") 

Somebody  says  "veto."  (A  voice,  "Bully  for  the  veto;"  cheers.)  Veto  of  what? 
What  is  called  the  Freedincu's  Bureau  bill.     And  I  can  tell  you  what  it  is.     (A  voice,  "Tell 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  331 

us.")  Before  the  robellioii  commenced  there  were  four  million  of  persons,  that  were  called 
colored  persons,  that  were  held  as  slaves  by  about  340,000  people  living  in  the  south. 
These  340,000  slaveholders  paid  the  expenses,  [worked  the  negroes,]  as  they  are  commonly 
called,  and  at  the  expiration  of  the  year,  [when]  the  rice,  tobacco,  and  cotton  were  sold, 
after  paying  all  the  expenses,  the  slaveholders  put  the  money  in  tlieir  pockets.  In  many 
instance's  there  were  no  profits,  [thus  he  that  bought  the  land  and  tlie  slaves  came  out  (?)] 
Well,  that  is  the" way  the  thing  stood  before  the  rebellion.  The  rebellion  commenced,  the 
slaves  were  turned  loose,  and  then  we  come  up  to  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill.  What  did 
the  Freedmen's  Bureau  propose?  It  is  to  appoint  agents  and  sub-agents  in  all  the  States, 
counties,  school  districts,  and  parishes,  with  power  to  make  contracts  for  all  the  slaves, with 
power  to  control,  power  to  hire  them  out,  and  to  dispose  of  them ;  and,  in  addition  to  that, 
the  whole  military  power  of  the  government  to  aid  the  execution  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau 
bill.  (A  voice,  "Bully.")  I  never  fear  clamor.  (A  voice,  "Good  for  you.")  I  never 
[have]  been  afraid  of  the  people,  for  it  is  in  them  I  relied,  and  upon  them  I  always  relied. 
Then  when  I  got  the  truth,  the  argument,  and  the  fact  and  reason  on  my  side,  neither 
clamor,  nor  frowns,  nor  menaces  can  drive  me  from  my  purpose.  [Cries  of  "bully,"  and 
cheers.] 

And  now  to  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill.  What  was  it  ?  Four  millions  of  slaves  were 
emancipated,  given  an  equal  chance,  a  fair  start  to  make  their  own  support ;  to  work,  pro- 
duce, and,  having  worked  and  produced,  to  appropriate  the  product  of  their  own  labor  to 
their  own  sustenance  and  support.  But  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  comes  along  and  says  that 
we  nmst  take  charge  of  four  millions  of  slaves.  (Cries  of  "No,"  never.)  The  Freedmen's 
Bureau  comes  along  and  proposes  to  appropriate  a  fraction  less  than  .$12,000,000  to  sustain 
this  Freedmen's  Bureau.  I  want  to  give  some  facts ;  I  want  to  put  the  nail  in,  and,  having 
put  it  in,  to  clinch  it  on  the  other  side.  [Cheers.]  Then  we  come  along  and  propose  at  the 
beginning,  as  an  initiative,  to  appropriate  !?]2,000,000  to  defray  the  expense  of  emancipating 
four  million  of  slaves.  In  the  first  instance  it  has  cost  you  three  thousand  million  of  dollars. 
Three  million  of  dollars  you  have  expended  ;  and,  after  having  given  a  full  and  fair  oppor- 
tunity to  enjoy  the  products  of  his  own  labor,  then  these  gentlemen  that  are  such  great  phi- 
lanthropists, that  are  such  great  friends  to  humanity — the  great  masses  of  the  people  who  toil 
and  labor  six  days  in  the  week,  and  some  of  them  not  even  resting  on  the  seventh,  must 
be  taxed  to  pay  §12,000,000  to  sustain  that  Freedmen's  Bureau.  [The  system  so  kept  on 
the  country  would  run  up  to  fifty  millions  of  dollars.]  In  the  days  of  John  Quincy  Adams 
$12,000,000  was  looked  upon  as  an  enormous  expense — [to  the  existence  of  the  government] — 
but  here  are  $12,000,000  for  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  Your  attention,  my  countrymen ;  I 
have  not  got  to  the  point  yet.    (Cheers.) 

Your  attention.  I  would  rather  sneak  to  five  hundred  men  who  would  give  me  attention 
than  to  ten  thousand  who  are  not  willing  to  hear  me.  How  does  the  matter  stand  ?  The  whole 
proposition  stands  to  transfer  4,000,000  of  slaves  from  the  original  owners — as  I  have  just 
told  you— in  the  south  to  their  new  task-masters  ;  [yes, ]  a  worse  system  of  slavery  than 
ever  existed  before  [was  to  transfer  four  million  of  slaves  to  a  new  set  of  task-masters,  who 
were  to  work  thern,  to  control  them,  to  make  their  contracts,  and  in  the  end,  if  there  were 

any  profits  made,  they  would  put  them  into  their  own  pockets,  instead  of [the  remainder 

of  the  seutence  was  broken  by  cheers  and  voices,  "True,"  "True."]  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  the  system  turned  out  to  be  unprofitable,  and  was  losing  business,  you,  the  people, 
liad  to  foot  up  the  bill  and  the  government  pay  the  expense.  That  is  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau  bill. 

Now  when  they  talk  about  power  and  usurpation,  I  stand  to-night  where  I  liave  always 
stood.  [See  this  measure  before  you.]  Before  this  Congre'ss  came  up  or  this  rebellion  com- 
menced ;  and  because  I  opposed  it,  exercising  one  of  the  most  conservative  powers  in  the 
constitutions  of  the  country.  What  could  I  do  by  the  veto  power?  [A  voice,  "Send  it 
over  your  head."]  Can  you  [present  anything?]  No.  But  all  that  the  Executive  can  do, 
who  was  the  repiesentative  of  the  people,  the  people's  tribune,  is  to  say  when  a  measure  is 
unconstitutional,  is  to  say  when  it  is  extravagant  and  improvident  and  [?]  let  the  people 
consider  of  it.  (Cheers.)  Was  there  any  t^'ranny  in  stopping  the  measure  until  you  can  get 
the  people  to  consider  it  ?  [A  voice,  "No."]  Then  as  your  tribune,  as  your  representa- 
tive, I  said  when  this  bill  was  [passed] — and  a  bill,  too,  if  I  had  been  disposed  and  with 
])lenty  of  power,  I  could  have  taken  it  into  my  hands,  with  thousands  of  satraps  and  from 
12  to  50  millions  of  expenditure,  I  could  have  declared  myself  dictator..  I  said  no  ;  that  the 
power  is  where  the  Constitution  placed  it— in  the  hands  of  the  people.  (Cheers.)  So  much 
for  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill. 

And  if  I  was  disposed  to  [come]  along,  in  connection  with  this  [and]  call  your  attention 
to  the  civil-rights  bill,  it  is  only  more  enormous  tlan  the  other.  [Confused  voices,  mingled 
with  cheers.  J  And  let  me  say  to  you,  all  the  threats  and  menaces  emanating  from  what  is 
called  the  extreme  men,  your  Stevenses,  your  Sunmers,  and  your  I'hillipses,  and  from  all 
that  class,  I  care  not;  as  they  have  once  talked  about  forming  a  league  with  hell  and  a 
covenant  with  the  devil.  [Laughter  and  cries  of  "bully."]  I  tell  you,  my  countrymen 
here  to-night,  that  though  the  powers  of  hell  and  Thad.  fetevens  and  his  gang  [were  by,] 
they  could  not  turn  me  from  my  purpose.  There  is  no  power  to  control  me  save  you  and 
the  God  who  spoke  me  into  existence.     ["Three  cheers."] 


332  .    IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

In  bidtlinj;:  you  farewell  [I  would  be  willing]  that  this  Congress  which  has  been  in  session 
and  wiiieh  has  taken  so  much  pains  to  poison  the  minds  of  their  constituents  against  me — 
what  has  this  Congress  done  ?  [A  voice,  "Nothing."]  Has  it  done  anything  to  restore  the 
Union  of  these  States  ?  [A  voice,  "  No."]  But,  on  the  contrary,  thej'  have  done  everj'thing 
in  their  power  to  prevent  it.  [A  voice,  "That  is  so."]  But  because  I  stand  now  where  I 
did  when  tliis  rebellion  commenced,  I  have  been  denounced  as  a  traitor  and  recreant  to  the 
cause  of  my  country.  [Cries  of  "Never."]  My  countrymen  here  to-night,  who  has  sutfered 
more  than  I  ?  [Cries  of  "No  one."]  Who  has  run  greater  risks — who  has  done  more  than 
I  that  address  you  here  to-night?  [Cries  of  "No  one,"  and  "God  bless  you,  old  man."] 
But  this  factious,  domineering,  tyrannical  party  in  Congress  has  undertaken  to  poison  the 
minds  of  the  American  people.  [Voices,  "That's  so,"  and  cheers.]  It  is  just  a  question 
of  power;  and  the  attempt  has  been  (?)  every  man  that  held  a  place  in  their  districts.  The 
President  cannot  control  it;  oh,  no — [my]  Congressmen  control  it.     [Laughter.]     Yes,  your 

assessors  and  collectors  and  postmasters [A  voice,  "Hit  'em  again."]     Why,  they  used 

to  have  an  axiom  in  old  times,  that  rotation  in  office  was  a  good  thing.  Washington  used 
to  think  so,  JttFerson  thought  so,  Monroe  thought  so,  Jackson  (God  bless  him  I)  thought  so. 

[Cheers;  a  voice,  "Here's  a  second  Jackson."]     But  now,  when  we  talk  about (The 

sentence  was  interrupted  by  confusion  in  the  assembly.)  Your  attention.  I  would  rather 
have  your  attention  [than  to  listen  to  you.] 

Now  how  does  the  matter  stand?  Why,  this  gang,  this  gang  of  cormorants  and  blood- 
suckers, that  have  lived  at  home  and  fattened  upon  the  country  the  last  four  or  live  years, 
never  going  into  the  field — oh,  they  are  great  patriots  and  everybody  [wants  to  turn  them 
out(?)  Look  at  them(?).]  Everybody  are  traitors  that  are  against  us.  Hence  you  hear  a  sys- 
tem of  legislation  proposed  to  do  what  ?  Why  that  these  men  shall  not  be  turned  out.  [  "  We 
have  got  our  particular  friends  in  power  in  the  districts  (?),"]  and  the  President,  the  tribune 
of  the  people,  the  only  channel  through  which  you  can  reach  and  vacate  these  places  and 
bring  honest  men  in,  is  denounced  as  a  tyrant  because  he  stands  [in  vindication  of  the  people.  ] 
[Cheers.]  All  it  wants  is  for  the  country  to  [understand.]  I  think  the  time  has  come  when 
those  who  have  staid  at  home  and  enjoyed  all  the  fat  offices  four  or  five  years,  got  rich — 
I  think  it  is  nothing  more  than  right  that  a  few  of  those  who  have  fought  the  battles  of  the 
country  [as  well  as]  others  who  have  staid  at  home  [should  join  in]  the  benefits  of  the  vic- 
tory. [How  is  it  with  Tennessee?  Why,  it  is  that  [I  mean  to  say  that  I  stood  up  with 
these  men  at  home]  and  in  the  field,  and  God  being  willing,  1  intend  to  stand  by  them  again. 
[Cries  of  "Good,"   "Bully,"  and  cheers.] 

Then,  my  countrymen — I  liave  been  drawn  into  this.  I  intended  simply  to  make  my 
acknowledgments  for  the  cordial  welcome  that  you  have  given  me.  But  even  in  going 
along,  passing  the  civilities  of  life,  if  I  am  insulted  while  the  civilities  are  going  on  I  will 
resent  it  in  a  proper  manner.  [Cries  of  "Good,"  and  cheers.]  Then  in  parting  with  you 
here  to-night,  if  1  know  the  feelings  of  my  own  heart,  there  is  no  anger.  I  have  no  revenge- 
ful feelings  to  gratify.  [A  voice,  "Everybody  loves  you."]  All  that  I  want  is — now  that 
peace  has  come,  now  when  the  war  is  over — is  for  all  patriotic  and  Christian  men  to  rally  round 
the  standard  of  their  country,  and  unite  in  one  [eternal,  patriotic  oath,]  and  swear  by  the 
altar  and  their  God  that  ail  shall  sink  together  but  what  this  Union  shall  be  restored.  [Cheers.] 
Then  in  ])artiug  with  you  here  to-night,  I  hand  over  to  you  this  fiag,  not  with  2,')  but  with 
36  stars ;  I  hand  over  to  you  the  Constitution  of  my  country  unimpaired,  though  breaches 
have  been  made  upon  it,  with  the  confident  hope  that  you  will  repair  the  breaches  and  pre- 
serve tlie  Constitution  intact.  1  hand  it  over  to  you,  in  whom  I  have  always  trusted,  and 
upon  whom  I  have  always  relied,  and  so  far  I  have  never  deserted.  And  1  feel  confident, 
though  speaking  here  to-night  for  heart  that  responds  to  heart — men  that  agree  in  principle, 
men  that  agree  in  some  great  doctrine,  [that  compare  ideas  or  notions,  when  they  come  to 
the  hour  of  acting  in  harmony  and  concert.]  Then  in  parting  with  you  to-night  1  hand  over 
the  fiag,  tlie  Constitution,  and  the  Union  into  hands  that  I  know  will  preserve  it,  and  at 
the  prop<o'  lime  will  render  the  i)roper(?). 

Then  farewell ;  and  the  little  ill-feeiing  that  lias  been  [stricken  out ;]  if  some  man  who  has 
been  morose  and  felt  malignant  under  the  inliuence  of  some  i)arty  leader  and  that  don't  feel 
that  he  is  free,  let  me  say  just  in  conclusion,  and  in  this  connection  I  tell  you  there  are  a 
good  many  white  nu^n  in  this  country  need  emancipating.  And  let  the  work  of  emancipa- 
tion go  on.  Strike  the  shackles  from  tiie  white  man's  limbs  and  let  him  stand  erect.  You 
i'ree  your  folks  at  home  before  you  go  to  the  negroes.  You  let  the  negroes  vote,  in  Oiiio 
before  you  talk  about  negroes  voting  in  Louisiana.  [A  voice,  "Never."]  Take  tiie  beam 
out  of  your  own  e^'t;  bel'ore  you  see  tiie  mote  tliat  is  in  your  neighbor's.  You  are  very  much 
disturbed  about  K»'W  Orleans,  but  you  wont  let  a  negro  [go]  to  the  liallot-box  to  vote  in  Ohio. 
[Then,  my  countrymen,  tliis  is  my  claim.]  We  undersland  these  (piestions. 

TJien  in  parting  with  you — [The  speeeli  is  not  concluded  in  my  notes — D.  C.  JIcEwen.] 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  333 

[Cleveland  Ilerakl  report.] 
Prest.  Johnson  then  stepped  forward  and  spoke  as  follows  : 

PREST.  JOHNSON'S  SPEECH. 

Fellow-citizens  of  Cleveland  :  It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  makinp;'  a  speech  that  I  came 
here  to-uifjht.  I  am  aware  of  the  great  curiosity  that  exists  on  the  pari,  of  strang^ers  in  reference 
to  seeiiipj  individuals  who  are  here  amongst  us.  (Louder.)  You  must  remember  there  are 
a  good  many  people  here  to-night,  and  it  requires  a  great  voice  to  reach  the  utmost  verge  of 
tliis  vast  audience.  I  have  used  my  voice  so  constantly  for  some  days  past  that  I  do  not 
know  as  I  shall  be  able  to  make  you  all  hear,  but  I  will  do  my  best  to  make  myself  heard. 

What  I  am  going  to  say  is:  There  is  a  large  number  here  who  would  like  to  see  General 
Grant,  and  hear  him  speak,  and  Itear  what  he  wovdd  have  to  say;  l)ut  the  fact  is  General 
Grant  is  not  here.  He  is  extremely  ill.  His  health  will  not  permit  of  his  appearing  before 
this  audience  to-night.  It  would  be  a  greater  pleasure  to  me  to  see  him  here  and  have  him 
.speak  than  to  make  a  speech  of  my  own.  So  then  it  will  not  be  expected  that  he  will  be  here 
to-night,  and  you  cannot  see  him  on  account  of  his  extreme  indisposition. 

Fellow-citizens,  in  being  before  you  to-night  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
speech,  but  simply  to  make  your  acquaintance,  and  while  I  am  telling  you  how  to  do,  and 
at  the  same  time  tell  you  good-bye.  We  are 'here  to-night  on  our  tour  towards  a  sister  State 
for  the  purpose  of  participating  in  and  witnessing  the  laying  of  the  chief  corner  stone  over 
a  monument  to  one  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  is  no  more.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  men- 
tion the  name  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  to  the  citizens  of  Ohio.  It  is  a  name  familiar  to  you 
all,  and  being  on  a  tour  to  participate  in  the  ceremonies,  and  passing  through  your  State  and 
section  of  country  and  witnessing  the  demonstration  and  manifestation  of  regard  and  respect 
which  has  been  paid  me,  I  am  free  to  say  to  you  that  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  and  I  think 
1  am  I  speaking  for  all  the  company,  when  I  shv  we  feel  extremely  gratified  and  flattered  at 
the  demonstration  made  by  the  country  through  which  we  have  passed,  and  in  being  flattered, 
I  want  to  state  at  the  same  time  that  I  don't  consider  that  entirely  personal,  but  as  evideucti 
of  what  is  pervading  the  public  mind,  that  there  is  a  greater  issue  before  the  country,  and 
that  this  demonstration  of  feeling  is  more  tTian  anything  el»  an  indication  of  a  deep  interest 
among  the  great  mass  of  the  people  in  regard  to  all  these  great  questions  that  afjitate  the 
public  mind.  In  coming  before  you  to-night,  I  come  before  you  as  an  American  citizen, 
and  not  simply  as  your  Chief  Magistrate.  I  claim  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  southern  States,  and 
an  inhabitant  of  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union.  I  know  that  it  has  been  said,  and  contended 
for  on  the  part  of  some,  that  I  was  an  alien,  for  I  did  not  reside  in  any  one  of  the  States  of 
the  Union,  and  therefore  I  could  not  be  Chief  Magistrate,  though  the  States  declared  I  was. 

But  all  that  was  necessary  was  simply  to  introduce  a  resolution  declaring  the  oflfice  vacant 
or  depose  the  occupant,  or  under  some  pretext  to  prefer  articles  of  impeachment,  and  the 
individual  who  occupies  the  Chief  Magistracy  would  be  deposed  and  deprived  of  power. 

But,  fellow-citizens,  a  short  time  since  you  had  a  ticket  before  you  for  the  Presidency  and 
Vice  Presidency  ;  I  was  placed  upon  that  ticket,  in  conjunction  with  a  distinguished  fellow- 
citizen  who  is  now  no  more.  (Voice,  "A  great  misfortune  too.")  I  know  there  are  some 
who  will  exclaim,  "Unfortunate."  I  admit  the  ways  of  Providence  are  mj'sterious  and 
unfortunate  butuncontrollable  by  those  who  would  exclaim  unfortunate.  I  was  going  to  say, 
my  countrymen,  but  a  short  time  since  I  was  selected  and  placed  upon  a  ticket.  There  was 
a  platform  prepared  and  adopted  by  those  who  placed  me  upon  it,  and  now,  notwithstanding 
all  kinds  of  misrepresentation  ;  notwithstanding  since  after  the  sluice  of  misrepresentation  has 
been  poured  out;  notwithstanding  a  subsidized  gang  of  hirelings  have  traduced  me  and 
maligned  me  ever  since  I  have  entered  upon  the  discharge  of  my  otiicial  duties,  yet  I  will  say 
had  my  predecessor  have  lived,  the  vials  of  wrath  would  have  been  poured  out  on  him. 
'(Cries  of  "'Never,  never,  never.")  I  come  here  to-night  in  passing  along,  and  being  called 
upon,  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging  opinions  and  views  as  time  would  permit,  and  to  ascer- 
tain if  we  could  who  was  in  the  wrong. 

I  appear  before  you  to-night  and  I  want  to  say  this  :  that  I  have  lived  and  been  among  all 
American  people,  and  have  represented  them  in  some  capacity  for  the  last  twenty-five  years. 
And  where  is  tlie  man  living,  or  the  woman  in  tlie  community,  that  I  have  wronged,  or 
where  is  the  person  that  can  place  tlieir  finger  upon  one  single  hairbreadth  of  deviation  from 
one  single  pledge  I  have  made,  or  one  single  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  our  country? 
What  tongue  does  he  speak  ?  What  religion  does  he  profess  ?  Let  him  come  forward  and 
place  his  finger  upon  one  pledge  I  have  violated.  (A  voice,  "  Hang  Jeff  Davis.")  (Mr. 
President  resumes.)  Hang  Jctf  Davis  ?  Hang  Jefl' Davis  ?  Why  don't  you?  (Applause.) 
Why  don't  you?  (Applause.)  Have  you  not  got  the  court?  Have  you  not  got  the  court? 
Have  not  you  got  the  Attorney  General  ?  Who  is  your  Chief  Justice,  and  that  refused  to  sit 
upon  the  trial  ?  (Applause.)  I  am  not  the  prosecuting  attorney.  I  am  not  the  jury.  But 
I  will  tell  you  what  I  did  do  ;  I  called  upon  your  Congress  that  is  trying  to  br^ak  up  the 
government.  (Immense  applause  )  Yes,  did  your  Congress  order  hanging  Jeff  Davis? 
(Prolonged  applause,  mingled  with  hi.sses.) 

But,  fellow-citizens,  we  had  as  well  let  feelings  and  prtjudices  pass;  let  passion  subside ; 


334  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

let  reason  resnme  her  empire.  In  presontinj^  mj'self  to  you  in  the  few  remarks  I  intended 
to  make,  my  intention  was  to  address  myself  to  your  judgfrnent  and  to  your  good  sense, 
and  not  to  your  anger  or  the  malignity  of  your  hearts.  This  was  my  object  in  presenting' 
myself  on  this  occasion,  and  at  the  same  time  to  tell  yon  good-bye.  I  have  heard  the  remark 
made  in  this  crowd  to-night,  "Traitor,  traitor!"  (Prolonged  confusion.)  My  countrymen, 
"will  you  hear  me  for  my  cause  ?  For  the  Constitution  of  my  country  ?  I  want  to  know 
when,  where  and  under  what  circumstances  Andrew  Johnson,  either  as  Chief  Executive,  or 
in  any  other  capacity,  ever  violated  the  Constitution  of  his  country.  Let  me  ask  this  large 
and  intelligent  audience  here  to-night,  if  your  Secretary  of  State,  who  served  four  years 
under  Mr.  l^incolu,  who  was  placed  under  the  butcher's  blow  and  exposed  to  the  as.sassin's 
knife,  when  he  turned  traitor.  If  I  were  disposed  to  play  orator,  and  deal  in  declamation, 
here  to-night,  I  would  imitate  one  of  the  ancient  tragedies  we  have  such  account  of — I 
would  take  William  H.  Seward  and  open  to  you  the  scars  he  has  received.  I  would  exhibit 
his  bloody  garment  and  show  the  rent  caused  by  the  assassin's  knife.  [Three  cheers  for 
Seward.]  Yes,  I  would  unfold  his  bloody  garments  here  to-night  and  ask  wiio  had  comnut- 
ted  treason.  I  would  ask  why  Jeff.  Davis  was  not  hung  ?  Why  don't  you  liang  Thad. 
Stevens  and  Wendell  Phillips  ?  I  can  tell  you,  my  countrymen,  I  have  been  fighting  traitors 
in  the  south,  [prolonged  applause,]  and  thej^  have  been  whipped,  and  say  they  were  wrong, 
acknowledge  their  error  and  accept  the  terms  of  the  Constitution. 

And  now  as  I  pass  around  the  circle,  having  fought  traitors  at  the  south,  I  am  prepared 
to  fight  traitors  at  the  north,  God  being  willing  with  your  help  ["You  can't  have  it,"  and 
prolonged  confusiou,]  they  would  be  crushed  worse  than  the  traitors  of  the  south,  and  this 
glorious  Union  of  ours  will  be  preserved.  In  coming  here  to-night,  it  was  not  coming  as 
Chief  Magistrate  of  twenty-five  States,  but  I  come  here  as  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  thirty- 
six  States.  I  came  here  to-night  with  the  flag  of  my  country  in  my  hand,  with  a  constella- 
tion of  thirty-six,  and  not  twenty-five  stars.  I  came  here  to-night  with  the  Constitution  of 
my  country  intact,  determined  to  defend  the  Constitution  let  the  consequences  be  what  they 
may.'  I  came  here  to-night  for  the  Union ;  the  entire  circle  of  these  States.  [A  voice,  "How 
many  States  made  you  President.'"]  How  many  States  made  me  President  ?  Was  you 
against  secession  ?  Do  you  want  to  dissolve  the  Union?  [A  voice,  "No."]  Then  I  am 
President  of  the  whole  United  States,  and  I  will  tell  you  one  thing.  I  understand  the  dis- 
cordant notes  in  this  audience  h(#e  to-night.  And  I  will  tell  you,  furthermore,  that  he  that 
is  opposed  to  the  restoration  of  the  government  and  the  Union  of  the  States,  is  as  great  a 
traitor  as  Jeff.  Davis,  and  I  am  against  both  of  them.  I  fought  traitors  at  the  south;  now  I 
fight  them  at  the  north.     (Immense  applause.) 

I  will  tell  you  another  thing;  I  know  all  about  those  boj's  that  have  fought  for  their 
country.  I  have  been  with  them  down  there  when  cities  were  besieged.  I  know  who  was 
with  them  when  some  of  you,  that  talk  about  traitors,  had  not  courage  to  come  out  of  your 
closets,  but  persuaded  somebody  else  to  go. 

Very  courageous  men !  While  Grant,  Sherman,  Farragut,  and  a  long  host  of  the  distin- 
guished sous  of  the  United  States  were  in  the  field  of  battle  you  were  cowards  at  iionie ;  arid 
now  when  these  brave  men  have  returned,  manj-  of  them  having  left  an  arm  or  leg  on  some 
battle-field  while  you  were  at  home  speculating  and  committing  frauds  upon  your  govern- 
ment, you  pretend  now  to  have  great  respect  and  sympathy  tor  the  poor  fellow  who  left  his 
arm  on  tlu;  battle-field.  I  understand  you,  who  talk  about  the  duty  of  the  President,  and 
object  to  his  speech  of  the  2"Jd  of  July,  [voice,  "  2'id  of  February,"] — ti'id  of  February.  I 
know  wlio  have  fought  the  battles  of  the  country,  and  I  know  who  is  to  pay  for  it.  Those 
brave  men  shed  their  blood  and  you  speculated,  got  money,  and  now  the  great  nuiss  of  the 
people  must  work  it  out.  [Applause  and  confusion.]  I  care  not  foryour  priyudices.  It  is 
time  for  tlie  great  mass  of  the  American  people  to  understand  what  your  designs  arc  in  not 
adniittliig  the  southern  States  when  they  have  come  to  terms  and  even  proposed  to  pay  their 
})art  of  the  national  debt.  I  say,  let  them  come;  and  those  brave  men,  iiaving  conquered 
them,  and  having  prostrated  them  in  the  dust  with  the  heel  of  power  upon  them,  wFiat  do 
theysay?  [Voice,  '•  What  does  General  Butler  say  ?"]  General  liutler  ?  What  does  General 
Grant  say  ?  And  what  does  General  Grant  say  of  General  Butler  ?  What  does  General  Sher- 
man say  ?  He  says  he  is  for  restoration  of  the  government ;  and  General  Sherman  fought 
for  it. 

But  fellow-citizens,  let  this  all  pass.  I  care  not  for  malignity.  There  is  a  certain  portion 
of  our  countrymen  that  will  respect  their  fellow-citi/.en  whenever  he  is  entitled  to  respect, 
and  there  is  another  portion  tluit  have  no  respect  for  theuiselves,  and  consequently  liavenonc 
for  anybody  else.  I  know  a  gentleman  when  I  see  him.  And  furtliertnore,  I  know  when  I 
look  a  man  in  the  face — [Voice,  "  Which  you  can't  do."]  I  wisli  I  could  see  you  ;  I  will 
bet  now,  if  there  could  be  a  light  reflected  U[(on  your  face,  that  cowardice  ami  treachery 
C(juld  be  seen  in  it.  Show  yuurself.  Conu' out  here  where  we  can  see  you.  If  ever  you 
shoot  a  man,  yuu  will  stand  in  tiie  dark  ami  pull  your  trigger.  I  timlerstand  traitors  ;  I  have 
been  fighting  them  for  five  years.  We  fought  it  out  on  tlio  southern  end  of  the  line;  now 
we  are  fighting  in  the  other  direction.  And  those  men — such  a  one  as  insulted  me  to-night— 
you  may  say,  has  ceased  to  be  a  man,  and  in  ceasing  to  be  a  man  shrunk  into  the  denomi- 
nation of  a  reptile,  and  having  so  shrunken,  as  an  honest  man,  I  tread  upon  Inm.  I  canio 
here  to-night  not  to  criminate  or  recriminate,  but  when  provoked  my  nature  is.  not  to  advance 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    TPIE    PRESIDENT.  335 

but  to  defenci,  and  wlien  encroached  upon,  I  care  not  from  what  quarter  it  comes,  it  will  find 
resistance,  and  resistance  at  the  threshold.  As  j-our  Cliief  Magistrate  I  have  felt,  after 
_takin(^  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  my  countrj',  that  I  saw  the  encroachments  of 
the  enemy  upon  your  sovereign  rights.  I  saw  the  citadel  of  liberty  intrenched  upon  and,  as 
an  honest  man,  being  placed  there  as  a  sentinel,  I  have  dared  to  sound  the  tocsin  of  alarm. 
Should  I  have  ears  and  not  hear  ;  have  a  tongue  and  not  speak  when  the  enemy  approaches? 

And  let  me  say  to-night  that  my  head  has  been  tln-eatened.  It  has  been  said  that  my 
blood  was  to  be  shed.  Let  me  say  to  those  who  are  still  willing  to  sacrifice  my  life  [derisive 
laughter  and  cheers],  if  you  want  a  victim  and  my  country  requires  it,  erect  your  altar,  and 
the  individual  who  addresses  you  to-night,  while  here  a  visitor,  ["No,"  "No,"  and 
laughter,  ]  erect  your  altar  if  you  still  thirst  for  blood,  and,  if  you  want  it,  take  out  the 
individual  who  now  addresses  you  and  lay  him  upon  your  altar,  and  tb.e  blood  that  now 
courses  his  veins  and  warms  his  existence  shall  be  poured  out  as  a  last  libation  to  Freedom. 
I  love  my  country,  and  I  defy  any  man  to  put  his  finger  upon  anything  to  the  contrary. 
Then  what  is  my  offence?  [Voices,  "You  aint't  a  radical,"  "New  Orleans,"  "Veto."] 
Somebody  says  "Veto."  Veto  of  what?  What  is  called  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill,  and 
in  fine,  not  to  go  into  any  argument  here  to-night,  if  you  do  not  understand  what  the  Freed- 
men's Bureau  bill  is,  I  can  tell  you.  [Voice,  "Tell  us."]  Before  the  rebellion  there  were 
4,000,000  called  colored  persons  held  as  slaves  by  about  340,000  people  living  in  the  South. 
That  is,  340,000  slave  owners  paid  expenses,  bought  land,  and  worked  the  negroes,  and  at 
the  expiration  of  the  year  when  cottou,  tobacco,  and  rice  was  gathered  and  sold,  after  all 
payvng  expenses,  these  slave  owners  put  the  money  in  their  pocket — [slight  interruption] — 
your  attention — they  put  the  property  in  their  pocket.  In  many  instances  there  was  no 
profit,  and  many  come  out  in  debt.  Well  that  is  the  way  things  stood  before  the  rebellion. 
The  rebellion  commenced  and  the  slaves  were  turned  loose.  Then  we  come  to  the  Freed- 
men's Bureau  bill.  And  what  did  the  bill  propose?  It  proposed  to  appoint  agents  and  sub- 
agents  in  all  the  cities,  counties,  school  districts,  and  parishes*  with  power  to  make 
contracts  for  all  the  slaves,  power  to  control,  and  power  to  hire  them  out — dispose  of  them, 
and  in  addition  to  that  the  whole  military  power  of  the  government  applied  to  carry  it  into 
execution. 

Now  [clamor  and  confusion]  I  never  feared  clamor.  I  have  never  been  afraid  of  the  peo- 
ple, for  by  them  I  have  always  been  sustained.  And  when  I  have  all  the  truth,  argument, 
fact  and  reason  on  my  side,  clamor  nor  affront,  nor  animosities  can  drive  me  from  my  purpose. 

Now  to  the  Freedmau's  Bureau.  What  was  it?  Four  nnllion  slaves  were  emancipated  and 
given  an  equal  chance  and  fair  start  to  make  their  own  support — to  work  and  produce ;  and 
having  worked  and  produced,  to  have  their  own  property  and  apply  it  to  their  own  support. 
But  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  comes  and  says  we  must  take  charge  of  these  4,000,000  slaves. 
The  bureau  comes  along  and  proposes,  at  an  expense  of  a  fraction  less  than  .$12,000,000  a 
year,  to  take  charge  of  these  slaves.  You  had  already  expended  $3,000,000,000  to  set 
them  free  and  give  them  a  fair  opportunity  to  take  care  of  themselves — then  these  gentle- 
men, who  are  such  great  friends  of  the  people,  tell  us  they  must  be  taxed  $12,000,000  to 
sustain  the  Freedmau's  Bureau.  [Great  confusion.]  I  would  rather  speak  to  500  men  that 
would  give  me  their  attention  than  to  100,000  that  would  not.  [W^ith  all  this  mass  of  pat- 
ronage he  said  he  could  have  declared  himself  dictator.  ] 

The  Civil  Kightsbill  was  more  enormous  than  the  other.  I  have  exercised  the  veto  power, 
they  say.  Let  me  say  to  you  of  the  threats  from  your  Stevenses,  Sumners,  Phillipses  and  all 
that  class,  I  care  not  for  them.  As  they  once  talked  about  forming  a  "league  with  hell  and 
a  covenant  with  the  devil,"  I  tell  you,  my  countrymen,  here  to  night,  through  the  power 
of  hell,  death  and  Stevens  with  all  his  powers  combined,  there  is  no  power  than  can  control 
me  save  you  the  people  and  the  God  that  spoke  me  into  existence.  In  bidding  you  farewell 
here  to-uight,  I  would  ask  you  with  all  the  pains  Congress  has  taken  to  calumniate  and 
malign  me,  what  has  Congress  done  ?  Has  it  done  anything  to  restore  the  Union  of  the 
States  ?     But,  on  the  contrary,  has  it  not  done  everything  to  prevent  it? 

And  because  I  stand  now  as  I  did  when  the  rebellion  commenced,  I  have  been  denounced 
as  a  traitor.  My  couutr3'men  here  to-night,  who  has  suffered  more  than  I  ?  Who  has  run 
greater  risk?  Who  has  borne  more  than  I?  But  Congress,  factious,  domineering,  tyran- 
nical Congress  has  undertaken  to  poison  the  miuds  of  the  American  people,  and  create  a 
feeling  against  me  in  consequence  of  the  manner  in  which  I  have  distributed  the  public 
patronage. 

While  this  gang — this  common  gang  of  cormorants  and  bloodsuckers,  have  been  fattening 
upon  the  country  for  the  past  four  or  five  years — men  never  going  into  the  field,  who  growl 
at  being  removed  from  their  fat  ofnces,  they  are  great  patriots !  Look  at  them  all  over  your 
district .'  Everybody  is  a  traitor  that  is  against  them.  I  think  the  time  has  come  when  those 
who  stayed  at  home  and  enjoyed  fat  oflices  for  the  last  four  or  five  years — I  think  it  would 
be  no  more  than  right  for  them  to  give  wa}'  and  let  others  participate  in  the  benefits  of  office. 
Hence  you  can  see  wh^'  it  is  that  1  am  traduced  and  assaulted.  1  stood  up  by  these  men  who 
were  in  the  field,  and  1  stand  by  them  now. 

I  have  been  drawn  into  this  long  speech,  while  I  intended  simply  to  make  acknowl- 
edgments for  the  cordial  welcome;  but  if  I  am  iusultfd  while  civilities  are  going  on  I  will 
resent  it  in  a  proper  manner,  and  in  parting  here  to-night  I  have  no  anger  nor  reven/ciul 


336  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

feclinofs  to  gratify.  All  I  want  now,  peace  1ms  come  anci  the  war  is  over,  is  for  all  patriotic 
men  to  rally  round  the  standard  of  their  conntrj',  and  swear  by  their  altars  and  their  God, 
that  all  shall  sink  together  but  what  this  Union  shall  be  supported.  Then  in  parting  with 
you  to-night,  I  hang  over  you  this  flag,  not  of  25  but  of  I5i)  stars  ;  I  hand  ov(;r  to  you  the 
Constitution  of  my  country,  though  imprisoned,  though  breaches  have  been  made  upmi  it, 
with  confidence  hoping  that  you  will  repair  the  breaches  ;  I  hand  it  over  to  you,  in  whom  I 
Lave  always  trusted  and  relied,  and,  so  far,  I  have  never  deserted — and  I  feel  confident, 
while  speaking  here  to-night,  for  heart  responds  to  heart  of  man,  that  you  agree  to  the  same 
great  doctrine. 

Then  farewell !  The  little  ill-feelings  aroused  here  to-night — for  some  men  have  felt  a  little 
ill — let  us  not  cherish  them.  Let  me  say.  in  this  connection,  there  are  many  white  popU'  in 
this  country  that  need  emancipation.  Let  the  work  of  emancipation  go  on.  Let  white  men 
stand  erect  and  free.  [A  voice,  "What  about  New  Orleans?"]  You  complain  of  the  dis- 
franchisement of  the  negroes  in  the  southern  States,  while  you  would  not  give  them  the  right 
of  suffrage  in  Ohio  to-day.  Let  your  negroes  vote  in  Ohio  before  j-ou  talk  about  negroes 
voting.  Take  the  beam  out  of  your  own  eye  before  you  see  the  mote  in  your  neighbor's  eye. 
You  are  wry  much  disturbed  about  New  Orleans  ;  but  you  will  not  allow  the  negro  to  vote 
in  Ohio. 

This  is  all  plain ;  we  understand  this  all.  And  in  parting  with  you  to-night,  let  me  invoke 
the  blessing  of  God  upon  you,  expressing  my  sincere  thanks  for  the  cordial  manner  in  which 
you  have  received  me. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  move  that  tlie  Senate  sitting  for  this  trial  stand  adjourned 
until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  Ff,s.senden.  I  wish  to  make  a  motion  that  takes  precedence  of  tliat,  that 
"when  the  court  adjourns  it  adjourn  to  meet  on  Monday  next. 

Mr.  Drake.  That  has  been  decided  against. 

Mr.  FesSE.\den.  It  can  be  considered  again,  because  other  business  has  been 
done  in  the  mean  time. 

Mr.  Edmu.\ds.  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order,  that  under  the  rules  the  motion  to 
adjourn  takes  precedence. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion  that  the  motion  to  adjourn  takes 
precedence  of  every  other  motion  if  it  is  not  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Ed.munds.  I  will  withdraw  it  at  the  request  of  the  senator  ffom  Maine. 

Mr.  Fessendem.  I  can  afterward  renew  the  motion  to  adjourn. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Maine  moves  that  when  the  Senate 
sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment  adjourns,  it  adjourn  to  meet  at  12  o'clock 
on  Monday. 

Mr.  Ferry  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered;  and.  being 
taken,'  resulted — yeas  16,  nays  29  ;  as  follows  : 

Y'f.as — Messrs.  Buckalew,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  I  lender- 
son,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Norton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Trumbull,  Van  \Viukle,  and 
Yickers— 16. 

Nav.s — Messrs.  Anthony,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Coiniess,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Frelinghuyseu,  Hendricks,  Howard,  Howe,  INIorgan,  jNIorrill  of 
Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Koss,  Sherman,  Sprague, 
St('wart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Willey,  and  Williams — '-i'J. 

Not  votiN(; — Messrs.  Payard,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Morton,  Eamsey,  Saulsbury,  Tipton, 
Wade,  and  Yates — 1). 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Edmunds    I  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  for  this  trial  mljourn. 
The  Chief  Justice.  Tlie  senator  from  Vermont  move's  that  the  Senate  sit- 
ting as  a  court  of  impeachment  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 
The  motion  was  ajrrecd  to. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  337 


Saturday,  April  4,  1S68. 

Tlie  Cliief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at 
12  o'clock  and  took  the  chair. 

The  nsual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  also  appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  House  of  Jlepresentatires  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  headed  by  Mr.  E-  B. 
Washburne,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker 
and  Clerk,  entered  the  Senate  chamber,  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  pro- 
vided for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  minutes  of  the  last  day's 
proceedings. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  yesterday 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  Managers,  you  will  please  to  proceed  with 
your  evidence.     The  senators  will  please  to  give  their  attention. 

L.  L.  Walhridge  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  Short-hand  writer. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  business  ? 

A.  Nearly  ten  years. 

Q.  Have  you  had  during  that  time  any  considerable  experience  ;  and  if  so,  how 
much  iu  that  business  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  had  experience  during  the  whole  of  that  time  iu  connec- 
tion with  newspaper  reporting  and  outside. 

Q.  Reporting  for  courts  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  With  what  papers  have  you  been  lately  connected  ? 

A.  More  recently  with  the  Missouri  Democrat ;  previous  to  that  time  with 
the  Missouri  Re}Tublican. 

Q.  Do  the  names  of  those  papers  indicate  their  party  proclivities,  or  are  they  • 
reversed  ? 

A.  They  are  the  reverse.         , 

Q.  The  Democrat  means  republican,  and  the  Republican  means  democrat  ? 

A.  Exactly. 

Q,  To  what  paper  were  you  attached  on  or  about  the  Sth  of  September,  1S66  ? 

A.  The  Missouri  Democrat. 

Q.  Did  you  report  a  speech  delivered  from  the  balcony  of  the  Southern  Hotel 
in  St.  Louis  by  Andrew  Johnson  ? 

A.  1  did. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  was  that  speech  delivered  ? 

A.  Between  eight  and  nine  o'clock  iu  the  evening. 

Q.  Was  there  a  crowd  in  the  streets? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  there  was,  and  on  the  balcony  also. 

Q.  Where  were  you  ? 

A.  I  was  on  the  balcony,  within  two  or  three  feet  of  the  President  while  he 
was  speaking. 

Q.  Where  were  the  rest  of  the  presidential  party  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Q.  Were  they  there  ? 

22  ^p  , 


3d8  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  liave  no  recollection  of  seeing  any  of  the  party  on  tlie  balcony. 

Q.  Did  the  President  come  out  to  answer  a  call  from  the  crowd  in  the  street 
apparently? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  judge  so;  I  know  there  was  a  very  large  crowd  in  the  street 
in  front  of  the  hotel,  and  there  were  continuous  cries  for  the  President,  and  in 
response  to  those  cries  I  supposed  he  came  forward. 

Q.  Had  he  been  received  in  the  city  by  a  procession  of  the  various  charitable 
societies  1 

A.  He  had  during  the  afternoon  been  received  by  the  municipal  authorities. 

Q.  Had  the  mayor  made  him  an  address  of  welcome] 

A.  He  had. 

Q.  Had  he  answered  that  address  ? 

A.  He  had. 

Q.  Did  you  take  a  report  of  that  speech  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  fully  ? 

A.  I  took  every  word. 

Q.  After  it  was  taken,  how  soon  was  it  written  out? 

A.  Immediately. 

Q,.  How  was  it  written  out? 

A.  At  my  dictation. 

Q.  By  whom? 

A.  The  first  part  of  the  speech  previous  to  the  banquet  was  written  out  in 
one  of  the  rooms  of  the  Southern  Hotel.  That  occupied  about  half  an  hour,  I 
think.  We  then  attended  the  banquet,  at  which  other  speeches  were  made. 
Immediately  after  the  conclusion  of  the  banquet  we  went  to  the  Republican 
office  and  there  I  dictated  the  speech  to  Mr.  Monahan  and  Mr.  McHeury,  two 
attaches  of  the  Republican. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  a  banquet ;  was  there  a  banquet  given  to  the  Presi- 
dent and  his  suite  by  the  city  ? 

A.  There  was,  at  the  Southern  Hotel,  immediately  after  the  speech  on  the 
balcony. 

Q.  At  that  banquet  did  the  President  speak  ? 

A.   He  made  a  very  short  address. 

Q.  And  there  was  other  speaking  there,  I  presume? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  that  speech  was  written  out  was  it  published  1 

A.  It  was.  • 

Q.  When? 

A.  On  the  very  next  morning,  in  the  Sunday  Republican. 

Q.  After  it  was  published  did  you  revise  the  publication  by  your  notes  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  soon  ? 

A.  Immediately  after  the  speech  was  printed  in  the  Sunday  morning  Repub- 
lican I  went  to  the  Democrat  office  in  company  witli  my  associate,  Mr.  Edmund 
T.  Allen,  and  we  very  carefully  revised  the  speech  for  the  Monday  morning 
Democrat. 

Q.  Then  it  was  on  the  same  Sunday  that  you  made  the  revi:5ion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  Sunday  after  the  speech. 

Q.  AVhen  you  made  the  revision  had  you  your  notes  ? 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  State  whether  you  compared  the  speech  as  printed  with  those  notes  ? 

A.   Yes,  sir ;   I  did  at  that  time,  and  since. 

Q.  When  you  compared  it,  did  you  make  any  corrections  that  were  needed, 
if  any  were  needed  ? 

A.  My  recollection  is  that  there  were  one  or  two  simple  corrcctiojis — errors 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  339 

either  in  transcribing  or  on  the  part  of  the  printer.  That  is  all  that  I  remember 
in  the  way  of  corrections  of  the  speech. 

Q.  Did  you  afterward  have  occasion  to  revise  that  speech  with  your  notes  1 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  I  think  that  was  little  over  a  year  ago. 

Q.  What  occasion  called  you  to  revise  it  with  your  notes  a  little  over  a  year 
ago  ? 

A.  I  was  summoned  here  by  the  Committee  on  the  New  Orleans  Riots,  and 
immediately  after  receiving  the  summons  I  hunted  up  my  notes  and  again  made 
a  comparison  with  them  of  the  printed  speech. 

Q.  How  far  did  that  second  comparison  assure  you  of  corrections  1 

A.   It  was  perfectly  correct. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  particularity  of  reporting ;  were  you  enabled  to  report 
so  correctly  as  to  give  inaccuracies  of  pronunciation  even  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  did  so  in  that  instance. 

Q.  Where  are  your  original  notes  now  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you,  sir.  I  searched  for  them  immediately  after  I  was  sum- 
moned here,  but  failed  to  find  them. 

Q.  You  had  them  up  to  the  time  you  were  examined  before  the  Committee  on 
the  New  Orleans  Riot  ? 

A.  I  had,  and  brought  them  with  me  here,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  them 
since  that  time. 

Q.  Plave  you  a  copy  of  that  paper  ? 

A.  1  have. 

Q.  Will  you  produce  it  ? 

(The  witness  produced  a  newspaper,  being  the  Missouri  Democrat  of  Monday, 
September  10,  1866.) 

Q.  Is  this  it  ?    ■ 

A.  It  is. 

Q.  From  your  knowledge  of  »the  manner  in  which  you  took  the  speech,  and 
from  your  knowledge  of  the  manner  in  which  you  corrected,  it,  state  whether 
you  are  now  enabled  to  say  that  this  paper  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  contains 
an  accurate  report  of  the  speech  of  the  President  delivered  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  am  enabled  to  say  it  is  an  accurate  report. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  propose,  if  there  is  no  objection,  to  offer  this  in  evi- 
dence, and  also  if  there  is  objection. 

Mr.  EvartS.  Before  that  is  done  let  us  cross-examine  this  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Blitlp-R.  Certainly. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  I  understand  that  you  took  down,  as  from  the  President's  mouth,  the 
entire  speech,  word  for  word  as  he  delivered  it  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  transcript  from  your  notes  and  in  this  publication  did  you  preserve 
that  form  and  degree  of  accuracy  and  completeness  '/     Is  it  all  the  speech  ? 

A.  It  is  the  whole  speech. 

Q.  No  part  of  it  is  condensed  or  paraphrased  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  the  whole  speech  is  there  in  complete  form. 

Q.  You  say  that,  beside  the  revision  of  the  speech  which  you  made  on  the 
Sunday  following  its  delivery,  you  made  a  revision  a  year  ago  l 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  what  reason  and  upon  what  occasion  ? 

A.  As  I  said,  it  was  owing  to  my  having  been  summoned  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  New  Orleans  Riot. 

Q.  A  committee  of  Congress  ? 


340  IMPEACHMENT    OF    ThE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  Ye3,  sir. 
■  Q.  At  Washington  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "VVheu  was  that  1 

A.  I  should  say  a  little  over  a  year  ago.     I  cannot  fix   the  date  proci:*ely. 

Q.  Were  you  then  inquired  of  in  regard  to  that  speech  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  did  you  produce  it  then  to  that  committee  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  before  any  other  committee  than  that  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  your  testimony  reduced  to  writing  1 

A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.   And  signed  by  you  ] 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  signed. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  suppose,  if  the  court  please,  that  this  report  is  within  the 
competency  of  proof 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Was  your  testimony  published? 

The  Witness.  The  testimony  I  gave  last  winter? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir;   before  the  New  Orleans  riot  committee. 

A.  I  am  not  aware  whether  it  was  or  not. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Will  the  Secretary  have  the  kindness  to  read  this 
speech  ] 

The  Chief  Clerk  read  as  follows,  from  the  Missouri  Democrat  of  Monday, 
September  10,  1866  : 

Speech  of  President  Johnson. 

Being  set  down  at  tlie  Sontliern,  ;i  large  crowd  colleL'tcd  in  Wulmit  street,  and  called 
loudly  lor  the  President.     He  answered  their  siunnious  by  the  tbHowiiig  address : 

Fellow-citizens  of  St.  Louis :  In  being  introduced  to  you  to-night  it  is  not  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  speech.  It  is  true  I  am  proiul  to  meet  so  many  of  my  fellow-citizens  liere  on 
this  occasion,  and  under  the  favorable  circumstances  that  I  do.  [Cry,  "  How  about  British 
subjects  ?  "]  We  will  attend  to  John  ]5ull  after  a  wliile,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned.  [Laugh- 
ter and  loud  ciieers.]'  I  have  just  stated  that  I  was  not  here  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
speech,  but  after  i)eing  introduced  simply  to  tender  my  cordial  thanks  for  the  welcome  you 
have  given  me  iu  your  midst.  [A  voice :  "Ten  tliousaud  welcomes  ;"  hurrahs  and  cheers. ] 
Thank  you,  sir ;  I  wish  it  was  in  my  power  to  address  you  under  favorable  circumstances 
upon  some  of  the  questions  that  agitate  and  distract  the  public  mind  at  this  time — (jucs- 
tions  that  have  grown  out  of  a  tiery  ordeal  we  have  just  passed  througli,  and  which  I  think 
as  important  as  those  we  liave  just  passed  by.  The  time  has  come  when  it  ^tf^ems  to  me  that 
all  oupht  to  be  prepared  for  ])eace.  The  rebellidu  being  suppressed,  and  the  shedding  of 
blood  being  stopped,  tiie  sacrifice  of  life  being  suspended  and  stayed,  it  seems  tluit  tiie  time 
has  arrived  when  we  should  have  ])eace  ;  when  the  bleeding  arteries  slmuld  be  tied  up.  [A 
voice,  "  New  Orleans  ;"   "  Go  on."] 

Perhaps  if  you  liad  a  word  or  two  on  the  subject  of  New  Orleans,  you  might  understand 
more  about  it  tiian  you  do.  [Laughter  and  chrcrs.]  And  if  you  will  go  back — [Cries  for 
Seward} — if  you  will  go  back  and  ascertain  the  cause  of  the  riot  at  New  Orleans,  [)erliaps 
you  would  not  be  so  prompt  in  calling  out  New  Orleans.  If  you  will  take  up  tlie  riot  at 
New  Orleans,  and  trace  it  back  to  its  source,  or  to  its  immediate  cause,  you  will  lind  out  who 
was  responsible  for  the  blood  that  was  shed  there. 

If  you  will  take  up  the  riot  at  New  Orleans,  and  trace  it  back  to  the  radical  Congress  [great 
cheering,  and  cries  of  "  liully"]  you  will  find  tliat  tiie  riot  at  New  Orleans  was  substantially 
])lanned — if  you  will  take  up  the  proceedings  in  their  caucuses  you  will  understand  that  they 
there  knew  [clieers]  tliat  a  convention  was  to  be  called  which  was  extinct,  by  its  powers 
having  expired  ;  that  it  was  said,  and  the  intentitm  was,  that  a  new  government  was  to  be 
organized  ;  and  in  tli(Mirganization  of  that  gtjvernment  tlio  intention  was  to  enfranchise  one 
portion  of  the  population  called  tiie  coloretl  jiopulatiou,  who  iiail  just  been  emancipatetl,  and 
at  the  same  time  disfrancliise  whiti^  men.  |  Cireat  cheering.  ]  When  you  begin  to  talk  about 
New  Orleans  [confusion]  you  ought  to  understand  what  you  are  talking  about. 

When  you  read  the  speeehis  that  wiMe  made  ort.ake  iij)  the  facts — on  Friday  and  Saturday 
before  tiiat  convention  sat — you  will  tliere  iind  that  spei'ches  were  made  incendiaiy  in  their 
character,  exciting  that  iiortion  of  tl'C  poi)ulation,  the  black  pojiulatiou,  to  arm  themselves 
and  prepare  for  the  shedding  of  blood.     [A  voice,  "That's  so,"  and  cheers.  J     You  will  also 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  341 

find  tliat  that  convention  did  assemble  in  violation  of  law,  and  tlie  intent  of  that  convcntiun 
was  to  supersede  the  recognized  authorities  m  the  State  government  of  Louisiana,  which 
had  been  recognized  by  the  government  of  tlie  United  States,  and  every  man  engaged  in  that 
rebellion — in  that  convention,  witli  the  intention  of  superseding  and  upturning  the  civil 
government  which  had  been  recognized  by  the  government  of  the  United  States — I  say  that 
he  was  a  traitor  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  [cheers,]  and  hence  yon  find  that 
another  rebellion  was  commenced,  having  its  origin  in  the  radical  Congress.  Tlieso  men 
were  to  go  there;  a  government  was  to  be  organized,  and  the  one  in  existence  in  Louisiana 
was  to  be  superseded,  set  aside,  and  overthrown.  You  talk  to  me  about  New  Orleans  !  And 
then  the  (juestion  was  to  come  up,  when  they  had  established  their  government — a  question 
of  political  power — which  of  the  two  governments  was  to  be  recognized — a  new  government 
inaugurated  under  this  defunct  convention — set  up  in  violation  of  law  and  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  people.  And  then  when  they  had  established  their  government  and  extended  univer- 
sal or  impartial  franchise,  as  they  called  it,  to  this  colored  population,  then  this  radical  Con- 
gress was  to  determine  that  a  government  established  on  negro  votes  was  to  be  the  govern- 
ment of  Louisiana.     [Voices,  "Never,"  and  cheers  and  "Hurrah  for  Andy."] 

So  much  for  the  New  Orleans  riot — and  there  was  the  cause  of  the  origin  of  the  blood  that 
was  shed,  and  every  drop  of  blood  that  was  shed  is  upon  their  skirts,  and  they  are  responsible 
for  it.  [Cheers.]  I  could  trace  this  thing  a  little  closer,  but  I  will  not  do  it  here  to-night. 
15ut  when  you  talk  about  New  Orleans,  and  talk  about  the  causes  and  consequences  that 
resulted  from  proceedings  of  that  kind,  perha]is,  as  I  have  been  introduced  here,  and  you 
have  provoked  questions  of  this  kind,  though  it  don't  provoke  me,  I  will  tell  you  a  few 
wholesome  things  that  has  been  done  by  this  radical  Congress.     [Cheers.] 

In  connection  with  New  Orleans  and  the  extension  of  the  elective  franchise,  I  know  that 
I  have  been  traduced  and  abused.  I  know  it  has  come  in  advance  of  me  here,  as  it  has  else- 
where, and  that  I  have  attempted  to  exercise  an  arbitrary  power  in  resisting  laws  that  was 
intended  to  be  enforced  on  the  government.     [Cheers  and  cries  of  "  Hear.] 

Yes,  that  I  had  exercised  the  veto  power,  ["  Bully  for  you,"]  that  I  had  abandoned  the 
power  that  elected  me,  and  that  I  was  a  t-r-ai-tor  [cheers]  because  I  exercised  the  veto  power 
in  attempting  to,  and  did  arrest  for  a  time,  a  bill  that  was  called  a  Freedmen  s  Bureau  bill. 
[Cheers  ]  Yes,  that  I  was  a  t-r-ai-t-o-r  !  And  I  have  been  traduced,  I  have  been  slandered, 
I  have  been  maligned,  I  have  been  called  Judas — Judas  Iscariot,  and  all  that.  Now,  my 
countrymen  here  to-night,  it  is  very  easy  to  indulge  in  epithets,  it  is  very  easy  to  call  a  man 
Judas,  and  cry  out  t-r-ai-tor,  but  when  he  is  called  upon  to  give  arguments  «Sc  facts  he  is 
very  often  found  wanting. 

Juddas,  Judas  Iscariot,  Judaas  '.  There  was  a  .Judas  once,  one  of  the  twelve  apostles.  Oh  ! 
yes,  and  these  twelve  apostles  liad  a  Christ.  [A  voice,  "And  a  Moses,  too."  Great  laugh- 
ter. ]  The  twelve  apostles  had  a  Christ,  and  he  couid  not  have  had  a  Judas  unless  he  had 
had  twelve  apostles.  If  I  have  played  the  Judas,  who  has  been  my  Christ  that  I  have  played 
the  Judas  with  ?  Was  it  Thad.  Stevens  ?  Was  it  Wendell  Phillips  ?  Was  it  Charles  Sumner  1 
[Hisses  and  cheers.  J  Are  these  the  men  that  set  up  and  compare  themselves  with  the  Savior 
of  men,  and  everybody  that  differs  with  them  in  opinion,  and  try  to  stay  and  arrest  their  dia- 
bolical and  nefarious  policy,  is  to  be  denounced  as  a  Judas.   ["Hurrah  for  Andy,"  and  cheers.] 

In  the  days  when  there  ware  twelve  apostles,  and  when  there  ware  a  Christ,  while  there 
ware  Judases,  there  ware  unbelievers,  too.  Y'-a-s ;  while  there  were  Judases,  there  ware 
unbelievers.  [Voices,  "Hear,"  "Three  groans  for  Fletcher."]  Yes,  oh!  yes!  unbelievers 
in  Christ :  men  who  persecuted  and  slandered  and  brought  him  before  Pontius  Pilate,  and 
preferred  charges  and  condemned  and  jjut  him  to  death  on  the  cross  to  satisfy  unbelievers. 
And  this  same  persecuting,  diabolical,  and  nefarious  clan  to-day  would  persecute  and  shed 
the  blood  of  innocent  men  to  carry  out  their  purposes.  [Cheers.]  But  let  me  tell  you — let 
me  give  you  a  few  words  here  to-night — and  but  a  short  time  since  I  he^ird  some  one  say  in 
the  crowd  that  we  had  a  Moses.  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  Yes,  there  was  a  Moses.  And  I 
know  sometimes  it  has  been  said  that  1  have  said  that  I  would  be  the  Moses  of  the  colored  man. 
["Never,"  and  cheers.]  Why,  I  have  labored  as  much  in  the  cause  of  emancipation  as 
any  other  mortal  man  living.  But  while  I  havestrived  to  emancipate  the  colored  man,  I  have 
felt,  and  now  tVel,  that  we  have  a  great  many  white  men  that  want  eoianci|iation.  [Laugh- 
ter and  cheers.]  There  is  a  set  amongst  you  that  have  got  shackles  on  their  limbs,  and  are 
as  much  under  the  heel  and  coirtrol  of  their  masters  as  the  colored  man  that  was  emancipated. 
[Cheers.] 

I  call  upon  you  here  to-night  ss  freemen — as  men  who  favor  the  emancipation  of  the  white 
man  as  well  as  the  colored  ones.  I  have  been  in  favor  of  emancipation;  I  have  nothing  to 
disguise  about  that — I  have  tried  to  do  as  much,  and  have  done  as  much,  and  when  they 
talk  about  Moses  and  the  colored  man  being  led  into  the  promised  land,  where  is  the  land 
that  this  clan  proposes  to  lead  them?  [Cheers.]  When  we  talk  about  taking  them  out 
from  among  the  white  population  and  sending  them  to  other  climes,  what  is  it  they  propose? 
Why,  it  is  to  give  us  a  Freedmen's  Bureau.  And  after  giving  us  a  Frcedineu's  Bureau,  what 
then  ?  Why,  here  in  the  south  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  talk  to  you,  where  I  have  lived 
and  you  have  lived,  and  understand  the  whole  system,  and  how  it  operates  ;  we  know  how 
the  slaves  have  been  worked  heretofore.  Their  original  owners  bought  the  land  and  raised 
the  negroes,  or  purchased  them,  as  the  case  might  be ;  paid  all  the  expenses  of  carrying  on  the 


342  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

farm,  and,  in  tlie  end,  after  pioilucing  tobacco,  cotton,  lienip,  and  flax,  anil  all  the  variows 
products  of  the  sontli,  hrinp-ing-  tlicni  into  the  market  wiilioiU  any  profit  to  tliem,  while  these 
owners  )int  it  all  into  their  o^vn  pockets.  This  was  their  condition  before  the  emancipation. 
This  was  their  condition  before  we about  their  ''Moses."     [Clieers  and  lau-chter.  ] 

Now  what  is  the  plan?  I  ask  your  attention.  Come,  as  we  have  got  to  talking  on  this 
subject,  give  me  }'onr  attention  for  a  few  minutes.  I  am  addressing  nijself  to  your  brains, 
and  not  to  your  i>rejudices ;  to  your  reason,  and  not  to  your  passions.  And  when  reason 
and  aigunient  again  resume  their  empire,  this  mist,  this  prejudice  that  has  been  incrusted 
upon  the  public  mind,  must  give  way  and  reason  become  triumphant.  [Cheers.]  Now,  my 
countrymen,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  single  fact,  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  [Laughtin' 
and  hisses.]  Yes;  slavery  was  an  accursed  institutiou  till  emancipation  took  place.  It  was 
an  accursed  institution  while  one  set  of  men  worked  fhem  and  got  the  profits.  But  after 
enianoipation  took  place  they  gave  us  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  They  gave  us  these  agents 
to  go  into  ever^'  county,  every  township,  and  into  every  school  district  throughout  the  United 
States,  and  especially  the  southern  States.  They  gave  us  commi.'sioners.  They  gave  us 
$12,0(10.000,  and  placed  tlie  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Executive,  who  was  to  work  this 
machinery,  with  the  army  brought  to  its  aid,  and  to  sustain  it.  Then  let  us  run  it,  on  the 
$I"2,000,000  as  a  beginning,  and,  in  the  end,  receive  .$50,000,000  or  .s(H>,000,000,  as  the  case 
njay  be,  and  let  us  work  the  4, (HO, 000  of  slaves.  In  fine,  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  was  a, 
sinqde  proposition  to  transfer  4,000,000  of  slaves  iu  the  United  States  from  their  original 
owners  to  a  new  set  of  ta.skma&ters.  [Voice,  "Never,"'  and  cheers.]  I  have  been  laboring 
four  years  to  emancipate  them ;  and  then  I  was  opi.osed  to  seeing  them  transferred  to  a  new 
set  of  taskmasters,  to  be  \\orked  with  mere  rigor  than  they  had  been  heretofore.  [Cheers.] 
Yes,  under  this  new  system  they  would  work  the  slaves,  and  call  on  the  government  to 
bear  all  the  expense,  and  if  there  was  any  profits  left,  why,  they  would  pocktt  them,  [laugh- 
ter and  cheers,]  wliile  you,  the  people,  must  pay  the  expense  of  running  the  machine  out  of 
your  pockets,  while  they  got  the  profits  of  it.      So  much  for  this  question. 

I  simply  intended  to-night  to  tender  you  my  sincere  thanks.  But  as  I  go  along,  as  we  are 
talking  aljou^this  Congress  and  these  res]iected  gentlemen,  who  contend  that  the  President 
is  wrong,  because  he  vetoed  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill,  and  all  this;  because  he  chose  t'l 
exercise  the  veto  power,  he  committed  a  high  offence,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  impi'ached. 
[Voice,  '"Never."]  Y-a-s,  ya-s,  they  are  ready  to  impeacli  him.  [Voice,  "  Let  them  try 
it."]  And  if  they  were  satisfied  they  had  the  next  Congress,  by  as  decided  a  majority  as 
this,  upon  some  pretext  or  other — violating  the  Constitution,  neglect  of  duty,  or  omitting 
to  enforce  some  act  of  law — upon  some  pretext  or  other,  they  would  vacate  the  Executive 
department  tif  the  United  States.  [A  voice,  "Too  had  they  don't  impeach  him."]  Whn-t  .' 
As  we  talk  about  this  Congress,  let  me  call  the  soldiers'  attention  to  this  immaculate  Con- 
gress— let  me  call  your  attention.  Oh  I  this  Congress,  that  could  make  war  upon  tlie  Ext-cu- 
tive  because  he  stands  upon  the  Constitution  and  vindicates  the  rights  of  the  people,  exer- 
cising the  veto  power  in  their  behalf— because  he  dared  to  do  this,  tliey  can  clamor  and  talk 
about  impeachment.  And  by  way  of  elevating  themselves  and  increasing  contidence  with  the 
soldiers  throughout  the  country,  they  talk  about  impeachment. 

So  far  as  the  Fenians  are  <.'oncerned ;  upon  this  subject  of  Fenians  let  nie  ask  you  very 
plainly  hereto-night  to  go  back  into  myliistory  of  legislation,  and  even  when  governor  of  a 
State — let  nie  ask  if  there  is  a  man  here  to  night,  avIio,  in  the  dark  days  of  Know-nothing- 
ism,  stood  and  sacrificed  more  for  their  rights?     [Voice,  "Good,"  and  cheers.] 

It  has  been  my  peculiar  misfortune  always  to  have  fierce  opposition,  because  I  have 
always  struck  my  blows  direct,  and  fought  with  ri^ht  aud  the  Constitution  on  my  side. 
[Clieers]  Yes,  1  will  come  back  to  the  soldiers  again  in  a  moment.  Yes,  here  was  a  neu- 
trality law,  I  was  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  and  see  that  that  law  was  faithfully 
executed. 

And  because  it  was  executed,  then  they  raised  a  clamor  4&  tried  to  make  an  appeal  to  the 
foreigners,  and  especially  the  Fenians.  And  what  did  they  do?  They  introduced  a  bill  to 
fickle  and  play  with  the  fancy,  pretending  to  repeal  the  law,  and  at  the  same  time  making 
it  worse,  aud  then  left  the  law  just  where  it  is.  [Vnice,  "That's  so."]  They  knew  that 
whenever  a  law  was  presented  to  me,  jiroper  in  its  lu-ovisions,  ameliorating  and  softening  the 
rigors  of  the  present  law,  that  it  would  meet  my  hearty  approbation  ;  but  as  tiiey  were  pretty 
well  broken  down  and  losing  public  confidence,  at  the  heels  of  tlie  session  they  found  they 
must  do  souietldng.  Aud  hence,  what  did  they  do  ?  They  pretended  to  do  something  for 
the  soldiers.  Who  has  done  more  for  tlie  soldiers  than  I  have?  Who  has  perilled  more  in 
this  struggle  than  I  have  ?  [Clu'crs.]  But  then,  to  make  them  their  ]ieculiar  friends  and 
favorites  of  the  soldiers,  they  cauie  forward  witli  a  proposition  to  do  what?  Why,  we  will 
give  the  soldier  ^'-O  bouniy — s.")0  bounty — your  attention  to  this — if  he  has  served  two  years  ; 
and  $100  if  lie  has  served  three  years. 

Now,  mark  3'ou,  the  colored  man  that  served  two  years  can  get  his  $100  bounty.  Ihit  the 
white  man  must  serve  thrti',  before  he  can  get  his.  [Cheers.]  lint  that  is  not  the  point.  While 
they  were  tickling  and  attempting  to  jilease  the  soldiers,  by  giving  them  .^-'jO  bounty  for  two 
years'  .service,  they  took  it  into  their  hiads  to  vote  somebody  else  a  bounty,  [laughter,]  and 
they  voted  themselv(  s  not  §50  for  two  yrars'  service  ;  your  attention — I  want  to  make  a  lodg- 
ment in  yiuu-  minds  of  the  facts  because  I  want  to  put  the  nail  in,  and  having  put  it   in,  I 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  343 

want  to  clinch  it  on  the  otlipr  side.  [Cheers.]  Tlie  brave  boys,  tlio  patriotic  yoiin<^  men 
who  followed  his  pfalhint  oflicers,  slept  in  the  tented  field,  and  perilled  Ins  life,  and  shed  his 
blood,  and  left  his  limbs  behind  him  and  camehome  manfjled  and  maimed,  can  get  $50  bounty, 
if  he  has  served  two  years.  But  the  meuibers  of  Congress,  who  never  smelt  gunpowder, 
can  get  $4,000  extra  pay.     [Loud  cheering.  ] 

This  is  a  faint  picture,  my  countrymen,  of  what  has  transpired.  [A  voice,  "Stick  to  that 
question."]  Fellow-citizens,  yon  are  all  familiar  with  the  work  of  restoration.  You  know 
that  since  the  rebellion  collapsed,  since  the  armies  were  suppressed  on  the  field,  that  everything 
that  could  be  done  has  been  done  by  the  executive  department  of  the  government  tor  the 
restorsifion  of  the  government.  Everything  has  been  done  with  the  exception  of  one  thing, 
and  that  is  the  admission  of  members  from  the  eleven  States  that  went  into  the  rebellion. 
And  after  having  accepted  the  terms  of  the  government,  having  abolished  slavery,  having 
repudiated  their  debt,  and  sent  loyal  representatives,  everything  has  been  done,  excepting  the 
admission  of  representatives  which  all  the  States  are  constitutionally  entitled  to.  [Cheers.] 
When  you  turn  and  examine  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  you  find  that  you  cannot 
even  amend  that  Constitution  so  as  to  deprive  any  State  of  its  equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate. 
[A  voice,  "They  have  never  been  out."]  It  is  said  before  me,  "They  have  never  been 
out."  I  say  so  too,  and  they  cannot  go  out.-  [Cheers.]  That  being  the  fact,  under  the 
Constitution  they  are  entitled  to  equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  no 
power  has  the  right  to  deprive  them  of  it,  without  violating  the  Constitution.  [Cheers.] 
And  the  same  argument  applies  to  the  Hoirse  of  Representatives. 

How  then  does  the  matter  stand  ?  It  used  to  be  one  of  the  arginncnts  that  if  the  States 
withdrew  their  representatives  and  senators  that  that  was  secession — a  peaceable  breaking 
up  of  the  government.  Now,  the  radical  power  in  this  government  turn  around  and  assume 
that  the  States  are  out  of  the  Union,  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress. 
[Cheers.]  That  is  to  say,  they  are  dissolutiouists,  and  their  position  now  is  to  perpetuate  a 
disruption  of  the  government,  and  that,  too,  while  they  are  denying  the  States  the  right  of 
represeiitation,  they  impose  taxation  upon  them,  a  principle  tipon  which,  in  the  Revolution, 
you  resisted  the  power  of  Great  Britain.  We  deny  the  right  of  taxation  without  representa- 
tion. That  is  one  of  our  great  principles.  Let  the  government  be  restored.  I  have  laboreil 
for  it.  Now.  I  deny  this  doctrine  of  secession,  come  from  what  quarter  it  may,  whether 
from  the  north  or  from  the  south.  I  am  opposed  to  it,  I  am  for  the  Union  of  the  States. 
[Voices,  "That's  right,"  and  cheers.]  I  am  for  thirty-six  States,  remaining  where  they  are, 
under  the  Constitution,  as  your  fathers  made  it,  and  handed  it  down  to  3'oir;  and  if  it  is 
altered,  or  amended,  let  it  be  done  in  the  mode  and  manner  pointed  by  that  instrument  itself, 
and  in  no  other.     [Cheers.] 

I  am  for  the  restoration  of  peace.  Let  me  ask  this  people  here  to-night  if  we  have  not 
shed  enough  blood  ?  Let  me  ask  are  yoti  prepared  to  go  into  another  civil  war?  Let  me 
ask  this  people  here  to-night  are  they  prepared  to  set  man  upon  man,  and,  in  the  name  of 
God,  lift  his  hand  against  the  throat  of  his  fellow  ?  [Voice,  "  Never."]  Are  you  prepared 
to  see  our  fields  laid  waste  again,  our  business  and  commerce  suspended,  and  all  trade 
stopped  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  see  this  land  again  drenched  in  our  brothers'  blood  ?  Heaven 
avert  it,  is  my  prayer.  [Cheers.]  I  am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  man  does  sin,  and 
having  sinned,  I  believe  he  must  repent;  and,  sometimes,  having  sinned  and  having  repented 
makes  him  a  better  man  than  he  was  before.  [Cheers.]  I  know' it  has  been  said  that  I 
have  exercised  the  pardoning  power.  Y-a-s,  I  have.  [Cheers  and  "  What  about  Drake's 
constitution?"]  Y-a-s,  I  have,  and  don't  you  think  it  is  to  prevail  ?  I  reckon  I  have  par 
doned  more  men,  turned  more  men  loose  and  set  them  at  liberty  that  were  imprisoned,  I 
imagine,  than  any  other  living  man  on  God's  habitable  globe.  [Voice,  "Bully  for  you," 
and  cheers.]  Yes,  I  turned  47,000  of  our  men  who  engaged  in  this  struggle,  with  the  arms 
they  captured  with  them,  and  who  were  then  in  prison,  1  turned  them  loose.  [Voice,  "Bully 
for  you,  old  fellow,"  and  laughter.] 

Large  numbers  have  applied  for  pardon,  and  I  have  granted  them  pardon.  Yet  there  are 
some  who  condemn  and  hold  me  responsible  for  so  doing  wrong.  Yes,  there  are  some  who 
stayed  at  home,  who  did  not  go  into  the  fieh^  on  the  other  side,  that  can  talk  about  others 
being  traitors  and  being  treacherous.  There  are  some  who  can  talk  about  blood,  and  ven- 
geance, and  crime  and  everything  to  "make  treason  odious,"  and  all  that,  who  never  smelt 
gunpowder  on  either  side.  [Cheers  ]  Yes,  they  can  condemn  others  and  recommend  hang- 
ing and  torture,  and  all  that.  If  I  have  erred,  I  have  erred  on  the  side  of  mercy.  Some  of 
these  croakers  liave  dared  to  assume  that  they  are  better  than  was  the  Saviour  of  men  him- 
self— a  kind  of  over  righteousness — better  thati  everybody  else,  and  always  wanting  to  do 
Deity's  work,  thinking  he  cannot  do  it  as  well  as  they  can.  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  Yes, 
the  Saviour  of  man  came  on  the  earth  and  found  the  human  race  condenmed  and  sentenced 
under  the  law.  But  when  they  repented  and  believed,  he  said,  "Let  them  live."  Instead 
of  exefuting  and  putting  the  world  to  death  he  went  upon  the  cross,  and  there  was  painfully 
nailed  by  these  unbelievers  that  I  have  spoken  of  here  to-night,  and  there  shed  his  blood 
that  you  and  I  might  live.  [Cheers.]  Think  of  it !  To  execute  and  hang  and  put  to  death 
eight  millions  of  people.  [Voices,  "Never."]  It  is  an  absurdity,  and  such  a  thing  is  im- 
practicable even  if  it  were  right  But  it  is  the  violation  of  all  law,  human  and  divine. 
[Voice,  "Hang  Jefl:'.  Davis."  [     You  call  on  Judge  Chase  to  hang  Jeff.  Davis,  will  you? 


344  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

[Great  cheering:.]  I  am  not  tLe  court,  I  am  not  tbe  jurv,  nor  tlie  judjje.  [Voice,  "Nor  the 
Moses."]  Before  the  case  couics  to  me,  and  all  other  cases,  it  woukl  have  to  come  on  appli- 
cation as  a  case  for  pardon.  That  is  the  only  way  the  case  can  get  to  me.  Why  don't 
Judge  Chase — Judge  Chase,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States,  in  ^^■hose  district  he  is — 
■w'liy  don't  he  try  him?  [Loud  cheers.]  But,  perhaps,  I  could  answer  the  question,  as 
sometimes  persons  want  to  he  facetious  and  indulge  in  repartee,  I  might  ask  you  a  question, 
wiiy  don't  you  hang  Thad.  Stevens  and  Wendell  Phillips  7  [Great  cheering.]  A  traitor  at 
one  end  of  the  line  is  as  bad  as  a  traitor  at  the  other. 

I  hnow  that  there  are  some  who  luive  got  their  little  pieces  and  sayings  to  repeat  on  public 
occasions,  like  parrots,  that  liave  been  placed  in  their  mouths  by  their  superiors,  who  have 
not  the  courage  and  the  manhood  to  come  forward  and  tell  them  themselves,  but  liave  their 
understrappers  to  do  their  work  for  them.  [Cheers.]  I  know  there  is  some  that  talk  about 
this  iiniversal  elective  franchise  upon  M-hich  they  ivanted  to  upturn  the  government  of  Lou- 
isiana and  institute  another;  who  contended  tliat  we  must  send  men  there  to  control,  govern, 
and  manage  their  slave  population,  because  they  are  iucompeteut  to  do  it  themselves.  And 
yet  they  turn  round  when  they  get  there  and  say  they  are  competent  to  go  to  Congress  and 
manage  the  affairs  of  State.  [Cheers.]  Before  you  commence  throwing  j'our  .stones  you 
ought  to  be  sure  you  don't  live  in  a  glass  house.  Then,  why  all  this  clamor?  Don't  you 
see,  my  countrymen,  it  is  a  question  of  power,  and  being  in  power  as  they  are,  their  object 
is  to  perpetuate  their  power?  Hence,  when  you  talk  about  turning  any  of  them  out  of  office, 
oh,  thej'  talk  about  "  bread  and  butter."  [Laughter.]  Yes,  these  men  are  the  most  perfect 
and  complete  "  bread  and  butter  party  "  that  has  ever  appeared  in  this  government.  [Great 
cheering.]  When  you  make  an  effort  or  struggle  to  take  the  nipple  out  of  their  mouth.s, 
how  they  clamor!  They  have  staid  at  home  here  five  or  six  years,  held  the  othces,  grown 
fat,  and  enjoyed  all  the  emoluments  of  position,  and  now,  when  you  talk  about  turning  one 
of  them  out,  ' '  Oh,  it  is  proscription,"  and  hence  they  come  forward  and  propose  in  Congress 
to  do  what?  To  pass  laws  to  prevent  the  Executive  from  turning  anybody  out.  [Voice, 
"  Put  'em  out."]  Hence,  don't  you  see  what  the  policy  was  to  be  ?  I  believe  iu  the  good 
old  doctrine  advocated  by  Washington,  Jefferson  and  Madison,  of  rotation  in  oflice. 

These  people  who  have  been  enjoying  these  offices  seem  to  have  lost  sight  of  this  doctrine. 
I  believe  that  when  one  set  of  men  have  enjoyed  the  emoluments  of  office  long  enough,  they 
should  let  another  portion  of  the  people  have  a  chance.  [Cheers.]  How  are  these  men  to 
be  got  out — [Voice,  "  Kick  'em  out;"  cheers  and  laughter]  unless  your  Executive  can  put 
them,  unless  you  can  reach  them  through  the  President?  Congress  says  he  shall  not  turn 
them  out,  and  tliey  are  trying  to  pass  laws  to  prevent  it  being  done.  Well,  let  me  say  to 
you  if  you  will  stand  by  me  in  this  action,  [Cheers,  J  if  you  will  stand  by  me  iu  trying  to 
give  the  people  a  fair  chance,  soldiers  and  citizens,  to  participate  iu  tho.se  offices,  God  being 
willing,  1  vill  "kick  them  out"  just  as  fast  as  I  can.  [Great  cheering.]  Let  me  say  to 
you  in  concluding,  what  I  have  said,  and  I  intended  to  say  but  little,  but  was  provoked  into 
this  rather  than  otherwise,' I  care  not  for  the  menaces,  the  taunts  and  jeers,  I  care  not  for 
the  threats;  I  do  not  intend  to  be  bullied  by  my  enemies  nor  overawed  by  my  friends; 
[cheers;]  but  Gdd  willing,  with  your  hel)),  I  will  veto  their  measures  whenever  they  couie 
to  me.  [Cheers.]  I  place  myself  upon  the  ramparts  of  the  Constitution,  and  when  I  see 
the  enemy  approaching,  so  long  as  I  have  eyes  to  see,  or  ears  to  hear,  or  a  tongue  to  sound  the 
alarm,  so  help  me  God  I  will  do  it,  and  call  upon  the  people  to  be  my  judges.  [Cheers.]  I 
tell  you  here  to-night  that  the  Constitution  of  the  country  is  being  encroached  upon.  I  tell 
you  here  to-night  that  the  citadel  of  liberty  is  being  endangered.  [A  voice — "Go  it, 
Andy."] 

I  say  to  you  then,  go  to  work  ;  take  the  Constitution  as  your  palladium  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty;  take  it  as  our  chief  ark  of  .safety.  Just  let  me  ask  you  here  to-niglit  to  cling  to 
the  Constitution  in  this  great  struggle  for  freedom  and  for  its  preservation,  as  the  ship- 
wrecked mariner  clings  to  the  mast  when  the  midnight  tempest  closes  around  him.  [Cheers.] 
So  far  as  my  ])ublic  life  lias  been  advanced,  the  people  of  ^lissouri,  as  well  as  of  other  States, 
know  that  my  ell'urts  have  been  devoted  in  that  direction  which  would  auielicrate  and  elevate 
the  interests  of  the  great  mass  of  the  ]ieople.  .[Voice,  "That's  so."]  M"liy,  where's  the 
speech,  where's  the  vote  to  be  got  of  mine,  but  wiiat  has  always  had  a  tendrncy  to  elevate 
the  great  working  classes  of  the  people  ?  [Cheers.]  When  they  talk  about  tyranny  and 
despotism,  where's  one  act  of  Andrew  Johnson's  that  ever  encroached  upon  the  rights  of  a 
free  man  in  this  laud  7  But  because  I  have  stood  as  a  faithful  sentinel  upon  the  watch-tower 
of  freedom  to  sound  the  alarm,  hence  all  this  traduction  and  detraction  that  lias  been  heaped 
upon  me.     ["  Bully  for  Andy  Johnson."] 

I  now,  tlien,  iu  conclusion,  my  countryuien,  hand  over  to  yon  the  flag  of  your  country 
with  thirly-six  stars  upon  it.  I  Iiaiid  over  to  you  your  Constitution  with  the  charge  and 
responsibility  of  preserving  it  intact.  I  hand  over  to  you  to-night  the  Union  of  these  States, 
the  great  magic  circle  which  embraces  them  all.  I  hand  them  all  over  to  3'ou,  the  j)cople, 
in  whom  I  have  always  trusted  iu  all  great  emergencies — (jMestions  which  are  of  such  vital 
interest — I  liand  them  over  to  yon  as  men  who  can  rise  iibove  |iarty,  who  can  stand  around 
the  altar  of  a  common  country  with  their  faces  u|itunied  to  heaven,  swearing  by  llim  that 
lives  forever  and  ever,  that  the  altar  and  uU  shall  sink  in  the  dust,  but  that  the  Constitution 
and  the  Union  sliall  be  preserved.     Let  us  stand  by  the  Uniou  of  these  States — let  us  light 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  345 

enemies  of  the  p^ovcnimcnt  come  from  what  quarter  thov  may.  My  stand  has  been  taken. 
You  uiKlerstand  what  my  position  is,  and  in  pavtin<j  with  you  now,  leave  the  government  in 
your  hands  with  the  eoutidence  I  have  always  liad  tliat  the  people  will  ultimately  redress  all 
wrongs  and  set  the  government  right.  Then,  gentlemen,  in  conchision,  for  the  cordial  wel- 
come you  have  given  me  in  this  great  city  of  the  northwest,  whose  destiny  no  one  can  fore- 
ieW — now,  [voice,  "Three  cheers  for  Johnson,"]  then,  in  bidding  you  good  night,  I  leave 
all  in  3'our  charge,  and  thank  you  for  the  cordial  welcome  you  have  given  me  in  this  spou- 
taueous  outpouring  of  the  people  of  your  city. 

Joseph  A.  Dkar  sworn  and  examined. 

Bv  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  Journalist. 

Q.  How  long  has  that  been  your  business  1 

A.  Five  years. 

Q.  Can  you  report  speeches  made  1 

A.  1  am  a  short-hana  writer  as  well. 

Q.  Did  you  join  the  presidential  party  when  it  went  to  St.  Louis,  via  Cleve- 
land 1 

A.  I  did  at  Chicago  on  the  6tli  of  September,  1866,  I  believe. 

Q.  Were  you  with  the  presidential  party  at  St.  Louis  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  take  a  report  of  any  of  the  speeches  made  there  ? 

A.  I  reported  all  the  speeches  made  there. 

Q.  For  what  paper  were  you  reporting  ? 

A.  I  was  with  the  party  as  the  correspondent  of  the  Chicago  Republican.  I 
made  the  reports  for  the  St.  Louis  Times. 

Q.  Have  you  your  notes  of  that  report  ? 

A.  I  have  part  of  them. 

Q.  Was  there  speaking  on  the  steamboat  ? 

A.  There  was. 

Q.  Did  you  report  that  speech  1 

A.  I  did  ;  part  of  it.     Yes,  I  reported  that  speech  on  the  steamboat. 

Q.  Was  that  in  answer  to  an  address  of  welcome  by  the  mayor  ? 

A.  I  think  that  was  a  speech  in  answer  to  an  address  of  welcome  by  Captain 
Eads. 

Q.  Who  was  he  ?     Whom  did  he  represent  1 

A.  I  believe  he  represented  a  committee  of  citizens  which  met  the  party  at 
Alton. 

Q.  How  did  you  make  this  report  ? 

A.  By  short-hand  writing. 

Q.  How  soon  did  you  write  it  out  1 

A.  That  evening. 

Q.  How  accurate  is  it  where  it  purports  to  be  accurate  ? 

A.  It  is  a  report  made  for  the  St.  Louis  Times  ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
reporting  for  a  paper  of  strong  democratic  politics,  I  corrected  inaccuracies  of 
grammar.     That  is  all. 

Q.  Have  you  since  written  that  out  from  your  notes,  so  far  as  you  have  the 
notes  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  (Handing  a  manuscript  to  the  witness.)  Look  there  and  see  if  that  is  your 
writing  out  from  your  notes  ? 

A.  (Examining  the  manuscript.)  This  is. 

Q.  An  exact  transcript  ] 

A.  An  exact  transcript. 

Q.  So  ftxr  as  it  goes,  is  it  an  accurate  report  of  the  speech  as  delivered  by 
Andrew  Johnson  ? 


146  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  "Witli  the  exception  I  have  mentioned. 

Q.  With  the  exception  of  inaccxiracies  of  grammar- 


J[r.  Sta.xbkky.  Is  that  the  speech  at  the  steamboat  or  tlic  hotel? 

Mr.  >fanager  Butler.  At  the  Southern  Hotel,  on  the  balcony.  They  are 
both  here  ;  but  I  am  now  asking  for  the  one  at  tlie  balcony. 

The  Witness.  The  first  is  the  speech  at 'the  Lindell  Hotel. 

Q.  The  other,  the  one  we  are  inquiring  about,  was  at  the  Southern  Hotel  ? 

A.  At  the  Southern  Hotel. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  mistook.  I  saw  the  memorandum  "steamboat" 
there.  (To  the  witness.)  Now  take  the  speech  at  the  Southern  Hotel.  So 
far  as  your  report  goes,  as  I  understand,  it  is  an  accurate  report  of  the  speech  ? 

A.  It  is. 

Q.  Why  is  it  not  all  there  ? 

A.  I  have  lost  part  of  my  notes. 

Q.  Whereabouts  does  it  commence? 

A.  The  speech  in  my  notes  commences  abruptly  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence, 
"  who  have  got  the  sliackles  u]ion  their  limbs,  and  which  are  as  much  under 
control  and  will  of  the  master  as  the  colored  men  who  were  emancipated." 

Mr.  HowAHD.  Where  was  this  speech  made? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  At  the  Southern  Hotel,  St.  Louis.  It  is  the  same 
speech  that  has  been  read.  (To  the  witness.)  Will  you  read,  sir,  where  your 
report  begins  ? 

A.  (reading.)  "  Wlio  have  got  the  shackles  upon  their  limbs,  and  which  are 
as  much  under  control  and  will  of  the  master  as  the  colored  men  who  were 
emancipated.  [Hisses  and  cheers.]  And  I  call  upon  you  as  freemen  to  advocate 
the  freedom  " 

Q.  That  will  do  for  the  present.     Does  the  speech  then  go  through  ? 

A.  It  goes  through  to  the  end. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (^to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  Gentlemen,  jnn 
will  see  that  this  report  begins  at  about  the  top  of  the  first  full  column  of  the 
previous  report  after  the  speech  commences.  (To  the  witness.)  Have  you  ever 
compared  that  with  this  paper  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  "  this  paper  "  is. 

Q.  This  paper  is  the  St.  Louis  Democrat. 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  never  have. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  oflFer  this  paper  now  in  evidence;  I  do  not  care 
to  read  it.     The  variations  are  not  remarkable. 

Mr.  Stanhkry.  We  will  first  cross-examine  the  witness. 

Mr.  ^Manager  Butler.  Certainly, 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Sta.x'bery  : 

Q.  Was  this  copy  of  yours  published  anywhere? 

a:  Yes. 

Q.  In  what  paper  ? 

A.  In  the  St.  Louis  Times. 

Q.  What  date  ] 

A.  The  Sunday  following;  I  think  the  9th. 

Q.  State  how  much  tiuu;  it  ro(|uir('3  a  short-hand  writer  to  write  out  his  notes 
in  what  is  called  long-hand,  compared  with  that  which  is  required  iu  taking 
down  the  notation. 

A.  AVe  generally  reckon  the  difference  between  the  rates  of  speed  in  writing 
long-hand  and  short-hand  as  about  one-sixth  or  one-seventh. 

Q.  That  is,  it  takes  six  or  seven  times  as  long  to  write  out  the  speech  as  it 
does  to  take  the  notes i' 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  then  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  347 

A.  There  arc  frequently  interruptions  in  the  course  of  a  speech  ;  t])cre  are 
frequent  pauses  of  a  speaker,  and  a  great  many  things. 

Q.  But  suppose  there  are  no  pauses,  but  you  are  merely  taking  down  the 
speech  1 

A.  If  a  man  talks  steadily  for  two  or  three  minutes  together,  it  will  take  from 
twelve  to  twenty  minutes  to  write  out  what  he  may  say  in  three  minutes'  time, 
ordinarily. 

Q.  That  is,  four  times  as  long  ?  , 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Suppose  he  speaks  rapidly  and  excitedly  1 

A.  If  he  is  a  very  fluent  speaker  it  may  take  longer. 

Q.  Of  course  there  is  a  difference  between  speakers  as  to  that  ? 

A.  A  very  great  deal  of  difference. 

Q.  In  a  rapid  speaker  what  is  the  proportion  of  time  ? 

A.  jV[y  last  answer  covers  it :   I  cannot  say  more  precisely  than  that. 

Q.  Does  the  standard  you  give  of  four  times  as  long  apply  to  those  who 
speak  deliberately  ? 

A.  Yes,  I  think  that  would.  A  man  could  easily  write  out  the  remarks  of  a 
deliberate  speaker  in  four  times  the  length  of  time. 

Q.  What,  then,  is  the  proportion  of  time  in  the  case  of  a  rapid  speaker  ? 

A.  Some  men  speak  about  as  high  as  two  hundred  and  thirty  words  a  minute. 
A  long-hand  writer  can  write  out  about  twenty-eight  or  thirty  words  a  minute 
steadily,  if  he  is  a  rapid  penman  and  has  no  difficulty  in  reading  his  notes. 

Q.  Then  it  ought  to  be  from  eight  to  ten  times  as  long  for  a  rapid  speaker  ? 

A.  About  seven  times  as  long. 

Q.  Twenty-eight  to  two  hundred  ? 

A.  That  is  about  seven  times. 

Q.  Then  the  long-hand  writer  who  is  reporting  will  get,  in  case  of  a  rapid 
speaker,  one  word  in  seven  ? 

A.  If  he  attempts  to  write  out  in  full. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  that  the  whole  of  your  report  of  the  speech  was 
published  in  the  Times  from  all  your  notes  ? 

A.  Not  the  whole  of  it. 

Q.  Was  it  condensed  for  that  publicationi  1 

A.  It  was  considerably  condensed. 

Q    Was  Andrew  Johnson  a  rapid  speaker  in  the  manner  that  he  spoke  1 

A.  Mr.  Johnson  is  a  very  fluent  speaker  and  a  very  incoherent  one. 

Q.  Repeating  frequently  his  words  1 

A.  Very  frequently  ;  very  tautological,  very  verbose. 

Q.  Does  that  enable  him  to  be  taken  with  more  ease  1 

A.  It  enables  him  to  be  taken  with  move  ease. 

Q.  Is  it  not  within  your  experience  that  there  are  men  who  by  practice  in 
long-hand  by  abbreviations  can  follow  very  accurately  or  quite  accurately  a 
speaker  who  spoke  as  Andrew  Johnson  spoke  ? 

A.  I  think  they  could  give  the  sense  of  his  speech  without  doing  him  any 
injustice. 

Q.  How  was  it,  taking  into  consideration  the  interruptions,  supposing  such  a 
writer  had  been  taking  him  from  the  balcony  1 

A.  He  would  have  to  indicate  the  interruptions  ;  he  could  not  write  them  out. 

Q.  But  could  he  get  the  sense  of  what  the  speaker  was  saying  1 

A.  Of  the  speaker  or  the  interruptions  ? 

Q.  Of  the  speaker. 

A.  Yes  he  could. 


348  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

By  Mr.  Stanrerv  : 

Q.  A  long-hand  writer  may  take  the  sense  and  substance  of  a  speech  ;  that 
is,  he  may  take  the  sense  and  substance  as  to  his  ideas  of  what  are  the  sense 
and  substance] 

A.  Undoubtedly ;  he  must  rely  on  his  own  view  of  what  was  intended  to  be 
said. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butlkr  : 

Q.  By  dictating  a  report  from  tlie  notes,  with  another  2)ersou  to  write  out,  it 
can  be  much  more  rapidly  written  out,  can  it  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  at  least  one-fourth. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  put  this  report  in  evidence.  I  do  not  propose  to 
read  it. 

Mr.  Sta\bery.  Let  it  be  printed. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Certainly. 

The  report  made  by  the  witness,  Joseph  A.  Dear,  is  as  follows  : 

Speech  from,  balcony  of  Southern  Hotel. 

After  a  few  words  of  thanks  Mr.  Johnson  was  iuterruptpd  with  inquiries  "  about  New 
Orleans,'"  and  in  reply  he  charged  the  responsibility  of  that  riot  on  Congress,  saying  it  was 
certainly  planned  and  that  every  drop  of  blood  shed  in  it  rested  on  the  skirts  of  the  radical 
Congress,  defended  himself  from  the  charj^e  of  liaving  been  a  traitor,  asked  had  he  played 
"Judas"  to  Thaddeus  Stevens  Wendell  Phillips  or  Charles  Sumner,  spoke  of  the  niajcir- 
ity  in  Congress  as  "this  same  persecuting  nefarious  and  diabolical  clan"  and  referring  to 
an  interruption  about  "Moses"  said  that  there  were  other  men  in  the  country  who  claimed 
their  sympathy  besides  colored  men. 

{Transcript  of  notes  resumed.)  *  ,###** 

who  have  got  the  shackles  upon  their  limbs  and  which  are  as  much  under  control  and  will 
of  the  master  as  the  colored  men  who  were  emancipated  (hisses  and  cheers)  and  I  call  upon 
you  as  freemen  to  advocate  the  freedom  of  the  white  man  as  well  as  the  colored  man.  I  have 
nothing  to  complain  about  emancipation.  I  tried  to  do  as  much  aud  have  done  as  much  as — 
and  when  they  talk  about  Moses  and  the  promised  land — where  is  the  promised  land  that 
these  people  propose  to  lead  them  to  when  tiiey  talk  about  taking  them  out  of  America  and 
sending  them  to  otlier  climes  what  is  it  they  propose?  Wliy  it  is  to  give  them  a  Frced- 
men's  Bureau  and  then  what?  Why  here  in  the  south  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to 
talk  to  you  about  the  system  and  how  it  operates.  We  know  slaves  have  been  worked  here 
before.  Their  original  owners  bought  the  land  and  bouglit  the  negroes,  paid  all  the  expenses 
of  carrying  on  the  farm  and  in  the  end  after  bringing  the  products  to  the  market,  if  there 
was  any  profit  on  them  these  men  put  it  into  their  pocket. 

I  am  not  addressing  myself  to  your  passions,  and  when  reason  and  argument  again 
resume  tlieir  sway  on  the  public  mind  this  prejudice  must  give  waj-  and  reasun  and  argu- 
ment become  triumphant.  Now  let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  single  fact,  the  bureau.  This 
slavery  was  an  accursed  institution  but  after  emancipation  took  place  the  Congress  here  gave 
us  our  commissioners,  gave  us  twelve  millions  of  dollars,  placed  the  power  in  tiie  liands  of  the 
President  or  the  Executive,  who  was  to  work  tliis  Tiiachinery  with  the  army  to  sustain  it,  aud 
let  us  work  the  four  millions  of  slaves.  In  fine  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  was  a  simple  proposition 
to  transfer  the  four  millinn  of  slaves  in  the  United  States  from  their  original  owners  to  a  new 
set  of  taskmasters.  I  had  been  laboring  for  years  to  try  and  get  them  freed  and  I  was  opposed 
to  seeing  tliem  transferred  to  a  new  set  of  taskmasters  to  be  worked  with  nmre  rignr  than 
before.  Yes,  under  tliis  new  system  they  would  work  the  slaves,  tlie  government  was  to 
bear  all  the  expense  and  if  there  was  any  profits  left  they  would  pocket  tiiem.  So  much 
for  this  question.  I  merely  intended  to  tender  you  here  tonight  my  thanks  tonigiit  as  wo 
go  along  and  not  to  talk  about  this  Congress  tliat  says  the  President  is  wrong  because  he 
vetoed  the  freedmen's  Bureau  Bill,  and  because  the  Piesident  exercised  the  veto  power,  ho 
has  committed  a  high  oll"eiic(-  and  therefore  he  ought  to  be  impeached.  (No.)  Yes  they  are 
read}'  to  impeatdi  him  aud  if  they  were  satisfied  of  having  as  large  a  majority  in  the  next 
Congress  as  this,  they  would  upon  some  pretext  of  violating  some  law  or  some  provision 
of  the  Constitution  they  would  vacate  tlie  Executive  of  the  United  States.  As  they  talking 
about  the  soldiers  let  me  call  the  attention  of  the  soldiers  to  tliis  immaculate  Congress, 
this  Congress  which  can  make  war  upon  ^ 

upon  the  )^ 
the  President  because  he  stands  by  the  ^  Constitution  and  exercises  the  veto  power  in  belialf  of 
the  people  they  dared  to  talk  about  impeachmen't 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  349 

By  way  of  imniortaliziug  themselves  and  inerensinfr  the  confiJeuce  of  the  solJicrs, 
thi'o'utrhdut  tliis  country  at  one  time  they  talked  about  impeachmcut.  (Ht)w  about  the 
Feniuiis  ?)  (Laughter)  So  far  as  the  Feuiaus  are  coiicerued  let  uie  ask  auy  Fenians,  if 
there  are  any  here  to-night,  to  go  back  to  my  history  and  say  who  in  the  dark  days  of 
Ivnow-notkingism,  stood  and  made  more  sacriticc  for  their  riglits.  It  has  been  my  peculiar 
misfortune  always  to  have  tierce  opposition  because  I  have  always  struck  my  blows  direct 
and  fought  with  the  right,  and  Constitution  on  my  side.  Yes  here  was  the  law  of  neutrality 
and  I  \\as  sworn  to  sujjport  the  Constitution  and  see  that  law  faithfully  executed  ("  Why 
didn't  you  do  it  ?")  The  law  was  executed,  and  because  it  was  executed  they  raised  a 
clamor  and  made  an  appeal  to  the  Fenians  and  they  pretended  to  repeal  the  law,  but  left  it 
just  as  it  was.  They  knew  that  whenever  a  law  was  presented  to  me  proper  in  its  character 
and  softening  the  provisions  of  the  present  law  it  would  meet  my  hearty  approbation.  Eut, 
to  return  to  the  soldier,  as  they  were  pretty  well  broken  down  and  losing  confidence  at  the 
end  of  secession,  they  thought  they  must  do  something  for  the  soldier.  What  did  they  do  ? 
Who  has  done  more  for  the  soldier  than  I  have  ?  who  has  sacrificed  more  for  the  soldier  than 
I  have  .'  But  they  to  make  them  the  friends  of  the  soldier  they  come  forward  with  a 
])roposition — to  do  what  ?  'J'o  give  to  the  soldier  fifty  dollars  ($50)  bounty  if  he  has  served 
two  ('2)  years,  one  hundred  dollars  ($100)  if  he  has  served  three  (3)  years.  Now  mark  this. 
The  colored  man  that  served  two  years  can  get  his  one  hundred  (JflOO)  dollars  bounty,  but 
the  white  man  must  serve  three  for  his. 

But  that  is  not  the  point.  W^hile  they  were  tickling  and  attempting  to  please  the  soldier 
by  giving  him  fifty  (!!j50)  dollars  for  two  (2)  years  services  they  took  it  into  their  head  to 
give  somebody  else  a  bounty,  not  of  fifty  ($50)  dollars  for  two  years  services — now,  atten- 
tion !  as  I  want  to  make  an  impression  on  your  minds  of  the  facts — When,  the  brave  boy  who 
has  followed  his  gallant  Oflicer,  who  slept  on  the  tented  field,  who  perilled  his  life,  shed  his 
blood  and  left  his  limbs  behind  him,  he  can  get  fifty  ($50)  dollars  bounty  if  he  has  served  two 
years,  but  the  Member  of  Congress  who  never  smelt  gunpowder  can  get  four  thousand  dollars 
($4,ti(-Mi)  extra  pay  (Loud  cheers)  That  is  a  true  picture  my  countrymen  of  what  has 
transpired  in  the  past.  Fellow-citizens  you  are  all  familiar  with  the  work  of  restoration ;  you 
know  that  ever  since  the  rebellion  collapsed  everything  has  been  done  that  could  be  done  by 
the  Executive  department  of  the  Government — in  fact,  all  has  been  done  except  the  admission 
of  the  members  of  the  eleven  States  that  went  into  rebellion,  but  having  laid  down  their  alms, 
abolished  slavery,  repudiated  their  debts  and  sent  loyal  representatives,  everything  has  beeu 
done  except  the  admission  of  the  representatives  which  all  the  States  are  constitiitiunally 
entitled  to.  When  you  examine  the  Constitution  of  the  United  states  you  will  find  that  you 
cannot  refuse  to  auy  state  its  sutiVage  in  the  Senate  (They  have  never  been  out)  That's 
so!  and  I  have  always  said  they  could  not  go  out  (cheers)  and  that  being  so  they  are 
entitled  to  their  equal  sufiVage  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  no  power  has  the  right  orcau 
deprive  them  of  it  without  violating  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  And  the  same 
argument  applies  to  the  representatives  in  the  House.  It  used  to  be  said  that  when  the  states 
rei'used  to  send  their  representatives  that  that  was  secession,  a  breaking  up  of  the  Union. 
Now  the  Radical  party  have  turned  round  and  say  that  the  States  are  not  entitled  to  repre- 
sentation in  Congress.  That  is  to  say  they  are  dissolutionists  and  their  position  now  is 
to  perpetuate  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  and  that  too  while  they  deny  the  right  of  repre- 
sentation they  impose  on  them  taxation — a  principle  upon  which  in  the  revolution  your  fathers 
resisted  the  power  of  Great  Britain.  We  deny  the  right  of  taxation  without  representation — 
this  is  one  of  the  great  principles  of  our  government.  (Cheers.)  Let  the  government  be 
restored,  let  peace  be  restored.  Many  years  I  have  labored  for  and  I  am  for  it  now.  I  deny 
this  doctrine  of  secession  come  from  whatever  quarter  it  may,  whether  from  the  North  or 
South.  I  am  opposed  to  it.  I  am  for  the  Union  of  these  states  for  the  thirty-six  stars  rep- 
reseuiiug  thirty-six  states  remaining  where  they  are.  I  am  for  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers 
have  made  it  and  handed  it  down  to  us  and  if  it  is  altered  or  amended  let  it  be  done  in  the 
mode  appointed  for  it  by  that  instrument  itself  and  in  no  other.  I  am  for  the  restora- 
tion of  peace.  Let  me  ask  this  people  here  tonight  if  we  have  not  shed  enough  blood.  Let 
me  ask  this  people  here  tonight,  are  you  prepared  to  go  into,  to  go  into,  another  civil  war? 
(No.)  Let  me  ask  this  peo]>le  here  tonight :  are  they  prepared  to  set  Man  upon  man  and  in 
the  name  of  God  lift  up  his  hand  against  the  throat  of  his  brother?  Are  you  prepared  to  see 
our  fields  again  laid  waste  oxw  commerce  and  business  suspended  and  all  trade  stopped  ? 
Are  we  prepared  to  see  this  land  that  gave  a  brother  birth,  drenched  in  a  brother's  blood  /  I 
am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  a  man  May  sin  and  that  a  man  May  repent  and  sometimes 
that  having  sinned  &  having  repented  it  makes  him  a  better  man  than  before,   (Cheers.) 

I  kuow  it  has  been  said  that  I  have  exercised  the  pardoning  power.  Yes,  I  have  (cheers) 
And  I  reckon  I  have  pardoned  more  men  than  any  other  man  living  on  the  habitable  globe. 
Yes,  I  turned  forty-seven  thousand  of  our  men,  who  were  engaged  in  this  struggle,  who  were 
in  prison  with  the  arms  we  captured— I  turned  them  loose.  Large  numbers  have  applied  for 
pardons  and  thus  I  have  granted  pardons  to  some.  But  by  some  I  am  attempted  to  be  held 
responsible  for  doing  wrong.  Yes,  there  are  some  who  stayed  at  home  and  did  not  go  into 
the  field  who  call  out  about  blood  and  punishment  and  making  treason  odious  and  all  that 
(Laughter)  who  never  smelled  gunpowder  on  the  other  side.  Yes  they  would  condemn  and 
they  would  hang  and  torture  and  all  that  and  they  that  make  the  comparison— but  if  I  have 


350  IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PRESIDENT. 

ened  I  liave  erred  on  mercy's  side  and  some  of  these  croakers  assume  to  set  np  that  ther  aro 
better  than  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  himself — a  kind  of  over  rifrhteousness — thinking  tliey  aro 
better  than  anybody-else  and  are  always  wantinp^  to  do  the  Deity's  work,  thinking;'  they  can 
do  better  than  he  can.  Yes,  the  Saviour  came  and  found  man  sentenced  and  under  the  law 
but  when  they  repented  he  said,  "  let  them  live."  Instead  of  putting'  them  to  death  he  went 
upon  and  was  there  painfully  nailed  by  those  unbelievers  that  I  have  spoken  of  and  there 
shed  his  blood  and  died  that  you  and  I  niijjht  live.  Will  j'ou  execute  and  put  to  death  eight 
million  of  people?  It  is  an  absurdity  and  is  impracticable  even  if  it  were  right,  but  it  is 
a  violation  of  all  law,  human  and  divine.     (Hang  Jeff  Davis.) 

You  call  on  Judge  Chase  to  hang  Jeff.  Davis;  will  you.'  (Laughter.)  I  am  not  the 
court,  I  am  not  the  Jury  nor  the.  Judge.  Before  the  case  comes  to  me,  ami  all  other  cases, 
it  would  have  to  come  as  a  case  or  application  for  pardon.  That  is  the  only  way  cases  can 
come  before  me.  Why  don't  Judge  Chase,  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States — in  whose 
district  he  is — why  don't  he  try  him  ?  But  perhaps  I  can  answer  the  question,  and  as  some- 
times people  will  be  facetious  and  indulge  in  repartee,  I  might  ask  you  a  question — why 
dont  you  hang  Thad  Stevens  and  Wendell  Phillips  .'  [Hisses,  Laughter,  and  Cheers.]  I 
say  that  a  traitor  at  one  end  of  the  line  is  as  bad  as  a  traitor  at  the  other.  I  know  men  ou 
some  occasions  who  repeat  sayings  that  have  been  placed  in  their  mouths  by  their  superiors, 
who  have  not  the  courage  to  come  forward  and  say  themselves,  but  have  their  understrap- 
pers come  forward.  I  know  there  are  some  who  talk  about  the  elective  franchise  for  which 
they  wanted  to  overturn  the  government  of  Louisiana,  who  say,  "  We  must  make  contracts 
and  send  men  to  these  colored  people  and  manage  their  afiairs  for  them,  and  yet  say  they  are 
competent  to  go  to  Congress  and  and  manage  affairs  of  state.  Before  you  conuuence  throw- 
ing your  stones  you  ought  to  be  able  to  say  that  j'ou  dont  live  in  glass  houses.  Then  why 
all  this  clamor?  Dont  you  see,  my  countrymen,  it  is  a  question  of  power  and  being  in 
power  it  is  their  object  to  perpetuate  their  power.  Hence  when  you  turn  any  of  them  out 
of  Office  they  talk  about  "  bread  and  butter."  Yes,  it  is  the  most  perfect  and  complete  bread 
and  butter  party  that  has  ever  appeared  in  this  government,  and  hence  when  jou.  make  an 
offer  to  take  a  single  piece  out  of  their  mouths  how  they  clamor.  The  man  who  has  stayed 
at  home  four  or  live  or  six  years  and  grown  fat  and  indulged  in  all  the  emoluments  of 
ofiice  and  grown  rich,  when  j-ou  talk  about  turning  one  of  them  out  it  is  "proscription," 
and  hence  it  is  one  of  the  objects  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  pass  a  law  prevent- 
ing the  Executive  from  turning  any  one  out.  (Turn  them  all  out.)  Hence,  dont  you  see 
what  the  policy  was  to  be. 

How  were  the  people  to  get  hold  of  the  offices.  The  idea  of  rotation  in  office  of  the  days 
of  Madison  and  JetYerson  seems  to  be  lost  sight  of;  but  my  belief  is  that  when  one  set  of  men 
have  been  in  long  enough  it  is  time  somebody  else  should  have  a  turn.  How  are  these  men 
to  be  turned  out?  (Kick  them  out)  How  is  this  to  be  done  unless  you  can  reach  them 
through  the  Executive.  Congress  proposes  to  jiass  laws  to  keep  them  in.  How  is  this  to 
be  done  unless  it  is  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  Well  let  me  say  to  you,  if  you 
will  stand  by  me  in  vindication  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  in  trying  to  give  the 
soldiers  and  people  a  chance,  I  will  kick  them  out  as  fast  as  I  can  (Loud  cheers.)  I  care 
not  for  the  menaces,  for  the  taunts,  the  jeers,  the  threats.  I  don't  intend  to  be  bullied  by 
my  enemies  or  even  overawed  by  my  friends  but  God  being  willing  with  your  help  I  will 
veto  every  measure  of  theirs  whenever  they  come  before  me.  I  place  myseli  on  the  ramparts 
of  the  Constitution  and  when  I  see  the  enemy  approaching  so  long  as  I  have  eyes  to  see  or 
cars  to  hear  of  a  tongtie  to  sound  the  alarm  so  help  me  God  I  will  do  it  and  call  for  30U  to 
the  rescue  (Loud  cheers.)  I  tell  you  here  to-night  that  the  constitution  of  the  country 
has  been  encroached  upon,  the  citadal  of  liberty  is  being  endangered  (Go  in  And}'!)  Come 
\\]>  to  the  woik  and  protect  your  Constitution  as  the  palladium  of  our  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty for  it  IS  the  ark  of  nur  safety.  Yes  let  me  ask  you  to  cling  to  the  Constitution  in  this 
great  struggle  for  freedom  as  the  shipwrecked  mariner  clings  to  the  plank  in  the  night  when 
the  tempest  Hows  around  him.  So  far  as  my  ]>ublic  life  is  concerned  the  people  of  Missouri 
know  that  my  efforts  have  been  in  that  direction  which  would  elevate  the  great  nuisses  of  the 
people.  Where  is  the  speech  or  vote  of  mine  but  what  has  always  had  a  tendency  to  elevate 
the  great  masses  of  the  jieople  and  when  they  talk  about  tyranny  or  despotism  where  is 
one  act  of  Andrew  .Johnson's  that  has  encroached  upon  the  rights  of  a  freeman. 

But  because  1  have  stood  tipun  the  outworks  of  frecMlom  and  have  sounded  an  alarm  hcnco 
all  this  detraction  that  has  been  heajied  upon  me.  Then  in  conclusion  here  to-night  I  hand 
over  the  flag  of  your  country  with  thirty-six  stars  uj)on  it.  I  handover  the  Constitution  of 
your  country  with  the  charge  and  responsibility  <if  preserving  it  intact.  1  hand  over  to  you 
to-night  the  great  circle  of  these  states.  I  hand  them  over  to  you,  the  jieople;  I  must  I 
have  always  trusted  the  people.  The  great  ((Uesiions  which  pertain  to  your  intere>t  I  hand 
.them  over  to  you  with  the  charge  t(i  preserve  them  as  men  who  can  rise  above  party 
iV-  come  around  the  altar  of  a  conuiion  country  ».V  with  laces  upturned  to  lieaven  swear  by 
him  and  all  shall  sink  into  the  dust  but  that  the  constitution  shall  be  jireserved.  Let  us 
stand  up  for  the  Union  of  these  States,  let  us  light  the  enemies  of  the  government  come  from 
whatever  quarter  they  may.  You  understand  what  my  position  is — no  tyranny — and  with 
you  to-niglit,  I  leave  the  Union  in  your  liands  with  the  confidence  I  have  always  had  that 
the  people  will  redress  all  wrongs  and  set  the  government  right.     Then  geullcmeu  of  this 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  351 


erefit  city  of  tlie  Westcni  States  in  bicldin<^  you  farewell  I  leave  all  in  your  cliarfro  and  thank 

'^  "^.1       ,•        »i         ,i-.i   1  I." „:.. i. „:»..  /I    1    ..1 \ 

DEAR. 


you  ffreath'  for  the  cordial  welcome  you  have  given  me  to  your  city  (Loud  cheers.) 

JOSEPH  A. 


Robert  S.  Chew  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  You  are  employed  in  tlie  State  Department  ? 

Answer.  I  am. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  ? 

A.  Chief  clerk. 

Q.  Is  it  part  of  your  duty  to  supervise  and  know  the  commissions  issued  ? 

A.  The  duty  devolves  particularly  upon  the  commission  clerk  of  the  depart- 
ment to  prepare  all  commissions.  The  commission  is  first  made  out  by  a  clerk 
"who  is  called  the  commission  clerk  of  the  department.  It  is  brought  to  me, 
and  by  me  sent  to  the  President.  When  returned  with  the  President's  signa- 
ture it  is  submitted  by  me  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  countersigns  it.  It 
then  goes  to  the  commission  clerk  for  the  seal  to  be  affixed. 

Q  Then,  when  it  does  not  belong  to  your  department,  where  does  it  go, 
when  it  is  not  a  commission  of  an  officer  in  your  department  ? 

A.  To  the  Treasury. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  if  I  understand,  the  commissions  of  officers  in  the  Treasury 
are  prepared  at  your  department  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  of  a  portion  of  .the  officers  of  the  Treasury. 

Q.  Such  as  whom  ? 

A.  Such  as  comptrollers,  auditors,  treasurers,  assistant  treasurers,  officers 
of  the  mint,  commissioners  of  the  revenue. 

Q.  Secretary  and  assistant  secretary? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  Then,  after  being  prepared,  they  are  sent  to  the  Treasury  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Those  that  belong  there  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  ' 

Q.  Those  belonging  to  your  office  are  issued  from  your  office  ? 

A.  From  the  Department  of  State. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  have  the  kindness  to  tell  us  whether,  after  the  passage  of 
the  civil-tenure  act,  any  change  was  made  in  the  commissions  of  the  officers  of 
your  department  to  conform  to  that  acti 

A.  I'here  was. 

Q.  What  was  that  change?  Tell  us  how  the  commission  ran  in  that  regard 
before  and  how  it  has  been  since. 

A.  (Referring  to  forms.)  The  form  of  the  old  commission  was  "during  the 
pleasure  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being."  Those  words 
have  been  stricken  out,  and  the  words  "  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by 
law  "  inserted. 

Q.  Does  that  apply  to  all  commissions  ? 

A.  That  applies  to  all  commissions. 

Q.  When  was  that  done  ? 

A.  Shortly  after  the  passage  of  the  tenure-of-office  act. 

Q.  About  how  soon,  if  you  can  tell  us,  one  month  or  ten  days  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  exactly,  but  when  the  first  case  came  up,  making  it  necessary 
for  the  commission  clerk  to  prepare  a  commission,  he  applied  for  instructions 
under  that  act. 

Q.  Was  the  subject  then  examined  in  the  department  ? 

A.  It  was.  ' 

Q.  Was  this  change  made  after  that  examination  or  before? 

A.  After  the  examination. 


352  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  "Was  it  made  by  tlio  direction  of  the  Secretary  or  not  ? 

A.  The  case  was  submitted  by  the  Secretary  to  the  legal  examiner,  and  upon 
his  opinion  the  change  was  made. 

Q.  By  order  of  the  Secretary? 

A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  You  print  the  form  of  your  commissions  on  parchment  by  copper-plate, 
do  you  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Was  the  copper-plate  then  changed  to  make  all  forms  1 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  For  the  various  kinds  of  commissions? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  blank  forms  of  the  various  kinds  of  commissions  issued  by 
your  department? 

A.  I  have.     [Producing  a  number  of  blank  forms.] 

Q.  Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  2d  of  March,  1867,  being  the  tenure- 
of-civil-office  act,  were  all  the  commissions  issued  to  hold  office  "during  the 
pleasure  of  the  President  for  the  time  being  ?  "  Were  they  all  issued  in  that 
form? 

A.  They  were  all  issued  in  that  form. 

Q.  Since  this  change  have  all  commissions  been  issued  in  the  changed  form  ? 

A.  They  have  been. 

Q.  Have  such  changed  commissions  been  signed  by  the  President? 

A.  They  have  been, 

Q.  Has  there  been,  down  to  to-day,  any  other  change  than  the  one  you  have 
stated  ? 

A.  None  at  all,  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Has  any  commission  whatever  for  any  officer  been  sent  out  from  your 
department  since  the  passage  of  the  act,  except  in  this  changed  form? 

A.  1  am  not  aware  of  any. 

Q.  Could  there  have  been,  except  by  accident,  without  your  knowing  it? 

A.  Not  unless  by  accident. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  I  now  propose, 
gentlemen,  to  offer  these  forms  in  evidence,  but  I  will  not  read  them  unless  you 
desire.       ,  i 

Mr.  Stanbery.     You  will  allow  us  to  ask  some  questions  first,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.     Certainly. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Mr.  Chew,  as  I  understand  you,  the  old  form  contained  this  clause,  "  said 
officer  to  hold  and  exercise  the  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  for  the  time  being."     That  was  the  old  form  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  I  understand  you  that  the  words  "during  the  pleasure  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being"  arc  now  left  out,  and  the  words 
"subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law"  are  inserted  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  changed  one  of  your  plates  or  forms  so  as  to  introduce  in 
place  of  what  was  there  before  these  words,  "to  hold  until  removed  by  the 
President,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate  ?" 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  have  ? 

A.  We  never  have. 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  if  any  commission  has  been  issued  to  a  head  of  Depart- 
ment different  from  those  that  you  issued  before  the  tenure-of-otHce  act  ?  Has 
any  commission  since  that  act  been  issued  to  a'  head  of  department  1 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  353 

A.  I  am  not  aware  of  any.  I  bronglit  uo  forms  of  commission  to  a  bead  of 
Depavtraent,  and  did  not  examine  that  question. 

Q.  Have  you  a  separate  plate  for  the  commission  of  a  head  of  department  ? 
A.  I  cannot  answer  that  question. 

Q.  But  you  recollect  no  instance  in  which  any  change  has  been  made  there? 
A.  I  do  not. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Has  there  been  any  commission  issued  to  a  head  of  department  since 
March  2,  1867  1 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then,  of  course,  there  is  no  change. 

Mr.  Stanberv'.     Of  course  not ;  that  is  what  we  have  proved. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Hand  to  the  clerk  all  the  forms  you 
have  brought  with  you.      We  offer  them  in  evidence. 

The  forms  offered  in  evidence  are  as  follows : 

Temporary  commission  of  deputy  postmaster--Ol(l  form.     In  the  form  now  used,  the  words  in 
brackets  arc  omitted,  and  thewords  "  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law  "  inserted. 

,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  who  shall  see  these  presents, 

greeting  : 

Know  ye,  tbat,  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  integrity,  ability,  and  punctu- 
ality of ,  I  do  aijpoiut deputy  postmaster ,  and  do  authorize  and 

empower  liim  to  execute  and  fulfil  the  duties  of  that  office  according  to  law  ;  and  to  have 
and  to  hold  the  said  office,  with  all  the  powers,  privileges,  and  emoluments  to  tlie  same  of 

right  appertaining  unto  him  the  said [during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of 

the  United  States  for  the  time  being,  and]  until  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  the  Senate  ot 
the  United  States,  and  no  longer. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent,  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand  at  the  city  of  Washington  the  —  day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of 

America  the . 

Ll.  s.]  . 

By  the  President : 


Secretary  of  State. 

New  form  permanent  postmaster. — No  form  of  old  commission  in  the  department. 

,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  who  shall  see  these  presents, 

greeting  : 

Know  ye,  that,  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  integrity,  ability,  and  punctu- 
ality of ,  I  have  nominated,   and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 

Senate,  do  appoint deputy  postmaster ,  and  do  authorize  and  empower  him  to  exe- 
cute and  fulfil  the  duties  of  that  office  according  to  law  ;  and  to  have  and  to  hold  the  said 
office,  with  all  the  powers,  privileges,  and  emoluments  to  the  same  of  right  appertaining 

unto  him,  the  said ,  for  the  term  of ,  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed 

bylaw. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  hei;eunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States 

of  America  the . 

[L.    S.]  . 

By  the  President : 


Secretary  of  State. 

[Postmasters  are  appointed  for  four  years.    The  words  "  unless  the  President 
of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being  should  be  pleased  sooner  to  revokt'  and 
determine  this  commission  "  are  now  omitted,  and  the  words  "  subject  to  the 
conditions  prescribed  by  law  "  inserted.] 
23  I  P 


354  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Netc  form,  temporary  commission  of  inarslial  and  atlornry.     In  commissions  of  viarshul  ^'dili- 
gence" is  used  instead  of  ''^learning." 

,  Prtsident  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  irho  shall  see  these  presents, 

greeting  : 

Know  ye,  that  reposiug  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  intej^rity,  ability,  and  learning 

of ,  I  do  appoint  him  to  be  attorney  of  the  United  States  for  the ,  and  do  authorize 

and  empower  hiiu  to  execute  and  fulfil  the  duties  of  that  otfice  according  to  law;  and  to  have 
and  to  hold  the  said  office,  with  all  the  powers,  privileges,  and  enioluinents  thereunto  legally 

appertaining  unto  him,  the  said ,  [until  the  end  of  tiio  next  session  of  the  Senate 

of  the  United  States,  and  no  longer;]  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  la\Y. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  tlie  cit}'  of  Washington,  the day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of 

America  the . 

[L.    S.]  . 

By  the  President: 


Secretary  of  State. 

Old  form. 

["  During  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  tlie  United  States  for  the  time 
being,  and  imtil  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
and  no  longer,"  instead  of  the  words  in  brackets  in  the  above  form.] 

Ntic  form,  permanent  mnrshuls  and  attorneys, 

,  Presidmt  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  who  shall  see  these  prese7its, 

greeting  : 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  tlie  integrity,  ability,  and  learning  of 

,  I  have  nominated,  and,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  do 

appoint  him of  the  United  States  in  and  ibr  the ,  and  do  authorize 

and  empower  him  to  execute  and  fulfil  tlie  duties  of  that  office  according  to  law;  and  to  have 
and  to  hold  the  said  office,  with  all  the  powers,  privileges,  and  emoluments  to  the  same  of 

right  appertaining  unto  him,  the  said ,  for  the  term  of ,  suliject 

to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent,  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of 

America  the . 

LL.    .S.]  . 

By  the  President : 

Secretary  of  State. 

[This  commission  is  used  for  attorneys  and  marshals.  Tlie  term  of  service  is 
four  years.  'J'he  words  "  unless  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time 
being  should  be  pleased  to  revoke  and  determine  this  commission  "  are  now 
stricken  out,  and  the  words  "subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law"  are 

inserted.] 

Form  if  coinniission  for  judges.     Ansiccrs  for  permanent  or  temporary. 

,  ['resident  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  icho  shall  see  these  presents, 

greeting  : 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  wisdom,  uprightness,  and 

learning  of ,  I  have  nominated,  and,  by  and  with  the  advice  antl  consent  of 

the  Senate,  do  appoint  him of  the  United  Stattis  in  and  for  the ■ , 

and  I  do  authorize  and  empower  him  to  execute  and  luUil  the  duties  of  that  office  according 
to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  UniUd  States,  and  to  have  and  to  hold  the  said  otlice,  with 
all  the  powers,  privileges,  and  emolumeuta  to  the  same  of  right  appertaining  unto  him,  the 
said 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  355 

In  testimony  ■whereof  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent,  and  tlie  seai  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  ntHxed. 

Given  uniU>r  my  liand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the  —  day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord ,  and  of  tlie  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the . 

[L.   S.]  . 

By  the  President : 

Secretary  of  State. 

[In  cases  of  judges  of  territories  the  words  "  subject  to  tlie  conditions  pre- 
scribed by  law "  are  inserted.  This  commission  is  used  for  judi^es  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  judges  of  district  courts  and  Territories, 
and  is  temporary  or  permanent,  as  the  case  may  be.] 

Form  of  netc  conunission  of  secretaries  of  legation  used  either  in  the  recess  or  session  of  the 

Senate. 

,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to ,  greetin>r  : 


Reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  your  integrity,  prudence,  and  ability,  I  do  appoint 

(or  nominate) secretary  of  the  legation  of  the  United  States  of  America , 

authorizing  you  hereby  to  do  and  perform  all  such  matters  and  things  as  to  the  said  place  or 
office  doth  appertain,  or  as  may  be  given  you  in  charge  hereafter,  and  the  same  to  hold  and 
exercise,  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  the  seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the  —  day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States 

of  America  the . 

[L.  S.]  . 

By  the  President : 


Secretary  of  Slate. 

[The  words  "  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for 
the  time  being"  were  formerly  used. J 

Old  temporary  consular  commission. 
The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  all  icho  shall  see  these  presents,  greeting: 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  abilities  and  integrity  of 

,  I  do  appoint  him  consul  of  the  United  States  of  America and  such  other  parts 

as  shall  be  nearer  thereto  than  to  the  residence  of  any  other  consul  or  vice-consul  of  the 
United  States,  within  the  same  allegiance ;  and  do  authorize  and  empower  him  to  have  and 
to  hold  the  said  office,  and  to  exercise  and  enjoy  all  the  rights,  pre-eminences,  privileges,  and 
authorities  to  the  same  of  right  appertaining,  [during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  for  the  time  being,  and]  until  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  and  no  longer,  he  demanding  and  receiving  no  fees  or  perquisites  of  office 
whatever  which  shall  not  be  expressly  established  hy  some  law  of  the  United  States.  And  I 
do  hereby  enjoin  all  captains,  masters,  and  commanders  of  ships  and  other  vessels,  armed  or 
unarmed,  sailing  under  the  flag  of  the  said  States,  as  well  as  all  other  of  their  citizens,  to 

acknowledge  and  consider  him,  the  said ,  accordingly.     And  I  do  hereby  pray 

and  reque.«t ,  governors  and  officers,  to  permit  the  said fully  and  peace- 
ably to  enjoy  and  exercise  the  said  office  without  giving,  or  suffering  to  be  given  unto  him, 
any  molestation  or  trouble  :  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  afford  him  all  proper  countenance  and 
assistance;  I  offering  to  do  the  same  for  all  those  who  shall,  in  like  manner,  be  recommended 
to  me  by . 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent,  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States 

of  America  the . 

[L.S.J  . 

By  the  President : 


Secretary  of  State. 

[The  words  iu  brackets  have  been  omitted  since  the  passage  of  the  tenure-of- 


office  act. 


356  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

New  ■pe.rmnnent  consular  covnnissions. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  all  zcho  shall  see  these  presents,  greeting: 
Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  abilities  and  intet^ritv  of- 


-,  I  have  nominated,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  do  appoint 

him of  the  United  States  of  America and  such  other  parts  as  shall  be 

nearer  thereto  than  to  the  residence  of  any  other  consul  or  vice-consul  of  the  United  States 
within  the  same  allegiance  ;  and  do  authorize  and  empower  him  to  have  and  to  hold  the  said 
office,  and  to  exercise  and  enjoy  all  the  rights,  pre-eminences,  jjrivileges,  and  authorities  to 
the  same  of  right  appertaining,  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law  ;   the  said  ■ 


demanding  and  receiving  no  fees  or  perquisites  of  office  whatever  which  sliall  not  be 
expressly  established  by  some  law  of  the  United  States.  And  I  do  hereby  enjoin  all  captains, 
masters,  and  commanders  of  ships  and  other  vessels,  armed  or  unarmed,  sailing  under  the 
flag  of  the  said  States,  as  well  as  all  other  of  their  citizens,  to  acknowledge  and  consider  him 
the  said accordingly.  iVnd  I  do  hereby  pray  and  request ,  governors  and  offi- 
cers, to  permit  the  said ft^Hy  and  peaceably  to   enjoy  a-nd  exercise   the  said   office 

without  giving,  or  suiiering  to  be  given  unto  him,  any  molestation  or  trouble;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  to  afford  him  all  proper  countenance  and  assistance  ;  I  offering  to  do  the  same  for 
all  those  who  slia'l  in  like  manner  be  recommended  to  me  by . 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent,  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the ' —  day  of ,  in  the  year 

of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United 

States  of  America  the . 

By  the  President : 


Secretary  of  State. 

[Heretofore  this  commission  read  "duriug  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  for  the  time  being."] 

Forms  of  commissions  used  for  gorrrnors,  secretaries  of  Territories,  and  officers  under  the  super- 
vision of  other  departments,  S^'c,  either  permanent  or  temporary,  as  the  case  may  be. 

,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  who  shall  see  these  presents,  greeting: 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  integrity  and  ability  of 

,  I  do  appoint  him ,  and  do  authorize  and  empower  him  to  execute  and  fulfil 

the  duties  of  that  office  according  to  law,  and  to  have  and  to  hold  the  said  office,  with  all  the 
powers,  privileges  and  emoluments  thereunto  of  right  appertaining,  unto  bin),  the  said 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent,  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  tlie  independence  of  the   United  States 

of  America  the . 

[L    S.]  . 

By  the  President : 


Secretary  of  State. 
Form  of  old  commission  of  permanent  ministers  plenipotcnti/iry  issuid  as  far  bark  as  1700. 
,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to ,  greeting : 


Kei)0sing  S])ecial  trust  and  confidence  in  your  integrity,  prudence,  and  ability,  I  have  nomi- 
nated, and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  ctinscut  of  tlie  .Siuate  do  appoint,  you  envoy  extraor- 
dinary and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  cf  America ,  authorizing  you 

hereby  to  do  and  perform  all  .such  matters  and  things  as  to  the  said  place  or  office  doth 
appertain,  or  as  may  be  duly  given  in  charge  hereafter,  and  the  said  office  to  hold  and  exer- 
cise during  the  pleasure  of  tlie  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being. 

In  testimony  whcM-cof  I  have  caused  tlu^  .seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the day  of ,  iu  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  the  iudepeudeuco  of  the  United  States 

of  America  the . 

[I,,  s.]  . 

By  the  President: 

Secretary  of  State. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  357 

[The  words  "during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for 
the  time  heing"  are  now  stricken  out,  and  the  words  ''  subject  to  the  conditions 
prescribed  by  law"  inserted.  The  same  with  commissions  for  ministers  resident 
and  secretaries  of  legation.] 

Form  of  old  commission  of  ministers  resident,  permanent  or  tcinporary,  and  is  used  for  tcmpo- 
7-ar^  commissioJis  of  envoy St  extraordinary  and  ministers  j)lbnlpotentiary. 

,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  to ,  greeting  : 

Reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  your  iuteg^rity,  prudence,  and  ability,  I  have 

nominated,  and,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  do  appoint  you 

,  of  the  United  States  of  America, ,  authorizinji^  yon  hereby  to  do  and 

perform  all  such  matters  and  things  as  to  the  said  place  or  office  doth  appertain  or  as  may 
be  given  you  in  charge  hereafter,  and  the  said  office  to  hold  and  exercise  [during  the  pleasure 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being.] 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  the  seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  hereunto  atJfixed. 

Given  under  my  hand  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of 

America  the . 

[S.    L.]  . 

^y  the  President : 

Sccrtlury  of  State. 
[If  used  as  a  temporary  commission,  the   words   used  in  place  of  those  iu 
brackets  are  "  until  the   end  of  the  next  session  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  and  no  longer."] 

Examination  of  Robert  S.  Chew  resumed. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Question.  Mr.  Chew,  how  long  have  you  been  chief  clerk  1 
Answer.  Since  July,  1S66. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  Department  of  State  ? 
A.  Since  July,  1834. 

Q.  That  is,  you  have  been  there  thirty-four  years  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  all  that  time  before  this  change  did  commissions  run  iu  this   way  : 
"  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  V 
A.  They  did. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  (Handing  a  written  paper  to  the  witness.)  I  suppose  you  know  Mr. 
Seward's  handwriting  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Is  the  letter  I  have  just  shown  you  signed  by  him  1 

A.  It  is. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  I  offer  now,  gen- 
tlemen, a  list  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Seward,  and  sent  to  the 
managers,  of  all  the  appointments  and  removals  as  they  appear  in  the  State 
Department  of  officers  from  the  beginning  of  the  government. 

Mr.  ST.WBERYaud  Mr.  Curtis.  Of  ah  officers  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Of  heads  of  departments.  It  is  accompanied  with 
a  letter  simply  describing  the  list,  which  I  will  read,  as  mere  inducements. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  read  it : 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  26,  1868. 

Sir:  In  reply  to  the  note  which  you  addressed  to  me  on  the  2:?d  instant,  in  behalf  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  in  the  matter  of  the  impeachment  of  the  President,  I  have  the 
honor  to  submit  herewith  two  schedules,  A  and  B. 

Schedule  A  presents  a  statement  of  all  removals  of  the  heads  of  departments  made  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  during  the  session  of  the  Senate,  so  far  as  the  same  can  be 
ascertained  from  the  records  of  this  department. 


358  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Schedule  B  contains  a  statement  of  all  appoiutnieuts  of  heads  of  departments  at  any  time 
made  liy  the  President  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  -while  the  Senate 
was  in  session,  so  far  as  the  same  appears  upon  the  records  of  the  Department  of  State. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 
Hon.  John  A.  Bingham.  Chairman. 

Schedule  A. 

List  of  removnls  of  heads  of  departments  made  hy  the  President  at  any  time  during  the  session 

of  the  Senate. 

Timothy  Pickering,  Secretary  of  State,  removed  May  13,  ISOO. 

That  is  the  whole  of  schedule  A.     Then  comes 

Schedule  B. 

List  of  npjiointments  of  heads  of  departments  made  hy  the  President  at  any  time  during  the 

session  of  the  Senate. 

Timothy  Pickering',  Postmaster  General,  June  1,  1794. 

Samuel  L.  Southard,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  January  26,  1829. 

Asbury  Dickins,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  March  17,  1832. 

John  ivobb.  Acting  Secretary  of  War,  June  8,  183-2,  and  July  16,  1832. 

McCliutock  Young,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  June  i;5.  J 834. 

Mahlon  Dickerson,  Acting  Secretary  of  War,  January  J 9,  1835. 

C.  A.  Harris,'  Acting  Secretary  of  War,  April  29,  183G. 

Asbury  Dickins.  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  May  19,  1836. 

C.  A.  Harris,  Acting  Secretary  ot  War,  May  27,  1836. 

McCliutock  Young,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  May  14,  1842,  and  June  30,  1842, 
and  March  ],  1843. 

John  Nelson,  Acting  Secretary  of  State  ad  irderim,  February  29,  1844. 

McCliutock  Young,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  May  2,  1844. 

Nicholas  P,  Trist,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  March  31,  1846. 

McCliutock  Y'oung,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  December  9,  1S47. 

John  Appleton,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  April  JO,  1848. 

Archibald  Campbell,  Acting  Secretarj-  of  VVar,  May  26,  1848. 

John  McGinnis,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  June  20,  1850. 

Winfield  Scott,  Acting  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  July  23,  1850. 

William  S.  Derrick,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  December  23,  1850,  and  February  20,  1852. 

William  L.  Hodge,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  February  21,  1852. 

William  Hunter,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  March  10,  1852. 

William  L.  Hodge,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  April  26,  1852. 

William  Hunter,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  May  1,  J852. 

William  L.  Hodge,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  May  24,  1852,  and  June  10,  1852. 

William  Hunter,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  July  6,  1852. 

John  P.  Iveunedy,  Acting  Secretary  of  War,  August  19,  1852. 

William  L  Hodge,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  August  27,  1852,  and  December  31 
1852,  and  January  J5,  1853. 

William  Hunter,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  March  3,  1853. 

Archibald  Campbell,  Acting  Secretary  of  War,  Januarj^  19,  1857. 

Samuel  Cooper,  Acting  Secretary  of  War,  March  3,  1857. 

Philip  Clayton,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  May  30,  1860. 

Isaac  Toucey,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  December  10,  1860. 

Thomas  A.  Scott,  Acting  Secretary  of  War,  August  2,  1861. 

George  Harrington,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  December  18,  186]. 

F.  W.  Si'ward,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,   January  4,   1862,  and  January  25,  18G2,  and 
February  6,  l.>-(>2,  and  A\)yi\  9,  J8t>2. 

George  Harrington,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  April  11,  1862,  and  May  5,  1862. 

William  Hunter,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  May  14,  1862. 

George  Harrington,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  May  19,  1862. 

F.  W.  Seward,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  .June  11,  i862,  iind  Juue  30,  1862. 

George  Harrington,  Acting  Secretary  of  the.  Treasury,  .January  8,  J 81)3. 

F.  W.  Seward,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  December  2:!,  1863,  and  April  11,  ]8f)4. 

George  Harrington,  Acting  Secretary  of  theTieasury,  April  14,  1864,  and  April  27,  1864, 
and  June  7,  J864,  and  June  30,  J8t)4. 

F.  W.  Seward,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  January  4,  1865,  and  February  1,  1865. 

Gerge  Harrington,  Acting  Secretary  of  tli(!  Treasury,  March  4,  1865. 

William  K.  Chandler,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  December  20,  1866. 

F.  W.  .Seward,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  May  15,  |.S(i(i. 

\MHiam  E.  Chandler,  Acting  Secn^tary  of  the  Treasmy,  l^ecember  20,  186(). 

John  T.  Hartley,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  September  16,  1867,  and  November 
13,  1867. 
F.  W.  Seward,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  March  11,  1868. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  359 

Mr.  CoNKLiiXG.  I  beg  to  ask  wliat  is  the  title  of  the  hist  schedule  which  has 
just  been  read.     Will  the  manager  read  it  again  1 

Mr.  ]\ranager  Butler.  "  List  of  appoiutnients  of  heads  of  departments  made 
by  the  President  at  any  time  during  the  session  of  the  Senate."  (To  the  wit- 
ness.) You  told  us,  Mr.  Chew,  how  long  you  had  been  in  the  State  Depart- 
ment.    How  long  was  that  ? 

A.  I  was  appointed  in  July,  1834. 

Q.  We  see  by  the  list  that  there  have  been  certain  appointments  of  Acting 
Secretaries  of  State;  tell  us  under  what  circumstances  they  were  made. 

Mr.  Stanbbry.     We  must  ask  that  that  question  be  repeated. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  repeat  the  question.  (To  the  witness.)  There 
are  in  the  list  certain  acting  appointments,  like  those  of  Mr.  Hunter,  Mr.  Appleton, 
and  Mr.  F.  W.  Seward.  I  do  not  ask  the  authority  under  which  they  were 
made  ;  but  I  ask  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  made.  What  was 
the  necessity  for  making  them — the  absence  of  the  Secretary  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  The  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

Q.  Since  1834,  in  the  thirty-four  years  you  have  been  there,  has  there  been 
any  appointment  of  Acting  Secretary  except  on  account  of  the  temjDorary  absence 
of  the  Secretary,  to  your  knowledge  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recall  any  at  this  time. 

Q.  By  whom  were  those  acting  appointments  made  ? 

A.  They  were  made  by  the  President  or  by  his  order. 

Q.  That  is  exactly  what  1  want  to  know.  Did  the  letter  of  authority  in  ipost 
of  these  cases — take  Hunter's  case  and  Appleton's  case,  for  example — proceed 
from  the  head  of  the  department  or  from  the  President  ? 

Mr.  Evarts.  We  object  that  the  papers  must  be  produced  if  their  form  is 
to  be  considered  as  material. 

Mr.  Manao-er  Butler.  I  am  not  asking;  for  form,  I  am  asking:  for  fact. 

Mr.  Evarts.  That  is  the  fact,  as  we  suppose,  what  the  authority  or  the  form 
of  authority  was. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  am  asking  now  from  whence  and  by  whom  issued  ; 
whether  the  letter,  whatever  may  be  its  form,  came  directly  from  the  head  of 
the  department  to  the  chief  clerk,  Mr.  Hunter,  or  to  Mr.  Applefcon,  who  was 
the  chief  clerk,  I  believe — whether  it  came  directly  from  the  head  of  the 
department  or  from  the  President. 

Mr.  Evarts.  The  objection  we  make  is  that  the  letter  of  authority  shows 
from  whom  it  came,  and  is  the  best  evidence  from  whom  it  came. 

Mr.  i\ranager  Butlek.  Suppose  it  should  happen  to  turn  out  that  there  was 
not  any  letter  ? 

Air.  Evarts.  Then  you  would  be  in  a  situation  where  you  could  prove  it  by 
some  other  evidence.     The  question  is  in  regard  to  letters  of  authority. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  asking  from  whom  the  authority  proceeded, 
because  I  do  not  know  now  to  Avhom  to  send  to  ask  to  produce  the  letter  until 
I  find  out  who  wrote  it. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  Were  any  authorities  given  except 
in  writing  and  by  letter  ? 

Tiie  Witness.  Only  in  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  again  say,  sir,  that  I  am  not  able  to  know  whom 
to  send  to  until  I  can  ask  from  whom  those  letters  came.  That  is  competent 
always. 

The  Chief  Justice.  You  can  ask  where  the  papers  are  ?  Where  these 
writings  are  preserved  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Well,  I  am  inclined,  may  it  please  your  honor,  to  put 
this  question,  with  the  leave  of  the  presiding  officer.  (To  the  witness.)  From 
whom  did  these  letters  of  which  you  speak  come  ? 

Mr.  Curtis  and  Mr.  Evarts.  That  we  object  to. 


360  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  CniKF  Ji'STICE.  The  honorable  munagei-  will  reduce  his  question  to 
writiiip;. 

Mr.  Miinagei-  Bi.tler.  What  I  propose  to  ask  is  whether  any  of  the  letters 
of  authority  this  witness  has  mentioned  came  fi'om  the  Secretary  of  State  or 
from  any  other  officer.  If  he  says  they  all  came  from  the  President,  that  will 
end  the  inquiry.  If  he  says  they  all  came  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  then  1 
may  want  to  send  for  them.     I  really  cannot  understand  the  objection. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  object  to  that  question  ? 
Mr.  EvARTS.  We  object  to  proof  of  the  authority  sought  to  be  proved,  except 
by  the  production  of  the  writing  by  which  the  witness  has  stated  that  in  all 
cases  it  is  evidenced.  If  it  is  sought  to  be  proved  who  made  a  manual  delivery 
of  a  paper  where  manual  delivery  was  made  to  this  witness,  this  witness  can 
speak  concerning  that,  and  give  such  information  as  pertains  to  that;  but  he  can 
go  no  further. 

Mr.  JIanager  Butler.  lam  not  now  proving  the  authority,  I  am  proving  the 
source  of  authority.  I  am  endeavoring  to  find  out  from  which  source  of 
authority  these  letters  came.  If  they  came  from  the  President,  that  is  one 
thing,  and  then  I  can  apply  there,  if  I  choose,  for  them;  whereas,  if  they  came 
from"  the  Secre'tary  of  State,  that  is  another  thing,  and  then  I  can  apply  thore. 
I  am  asking,  in  the  usual  course  of  examination,  as  I  understand  the  examina- 
tions of  witnesses,  whence  certain  papers  came ;  were  they  the  papers  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  or  were  they  the  papers  of  the  President  1  That  does  not 
put  in  their  effect. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Do  you  mean  to  inquire  who  signed  the  letters  of  authority  ;  is 
that  your  ii  quiry  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  mean  to  inquire  precisely  whether  the  letter  of 
authority  came  from  the  Secretary  or  from  the  President. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Do  you  uiean  by  that  who  signed  the  letter,  or  do  you  mean  out 
of  whose  manual  possession  it  came  into  this  gentleman's  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  1  mean,  sir,  who  signed  the  letter,  if  you  put  it  in 
that  form. 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  we  object  to. 

Mr.  Manjjgcr  Butler.  1  do  not  do  that  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  con- 
tents of  the  letter,  but  for  the  purpose  of  identification  of  the  letter. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Tlie  signature  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  letter  and  its  contents  as 
anything  else. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Is  this  offered  to  prove  who  signed  the  letter?  We  say  the 
paper  itself  will  show  who  signed  it. 

i\Ir.  Manager  Butler.  The  difficulty  is  that  unless  I  talk  an  hour  these 
gentlemen  are  determined  that  I  never  shall  have  the  reply  on  my  proposition. 
My  proposition  is  not  to  prove  the  authority,  nor  to  prove  the  signature,  but  it 
is  to  prove  the  identity  of  the  paper;  and  it  is  not  to  prove  that  it  was  a  letter 
of  authority,  because  Mr.  Seward  signed  it,  for  instance,  but  it  is  to  prove 
whether  I  am  to  look  for  my  evidence  in  a  given  direction  or  in  another  direc- 
tion. If  the  witness  says  that  Mr.  Seward  signed  it,  for  example,  I  should 
have  no  right  to  argue  to  the  Senate  that,  therefore,  it  was  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Seward  ;  but  I  ain  desirous,  if  1  can,  to  ascertain  whether  it  is  worth  while  for 
me  to  go  aiiy  further  than  to  argue  this  question  ;  and  the  objection  seems  to 
me  over-sensitiveness. 

I'he  ChiiKF  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  propounded  by 
the  honorable  manager. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Question.  State  whether  any  of  thi'  letters  uf  authcirity  whicli  yuu  have  mentioned  caiiio 
Iroiii  the  Secretary  of  State,  or  from  wliat  other  olHeer  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  "Came  from  the  Secretary  of  State."  Do  I  under- 
stand you  to  mean  signed  by  him  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PKESIDENT.  361 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  not  anxious  upon  that  part  of  it,  sir.  I  am  con- 
tent with  the  question  as  it  stands. 

The  Chikf  Justice,  The  Chief  Justice  conceives  that  the  question  in  the 
form  in  which  it  is  put  is  not  olijectionable 

Mr.  Manager  Bu'I'Ler.  I  will  put  it,  then,  with  the  leave  of  the  Chief  Justice. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  was  about  to  proceed  to  saj  that  if 
it  is  intended  to  ask  the  question  whether  thet^e  documents,  of  which  a  list  is 
furnished,  were  signed  by  the  Secretary,  thcu  he  thinks  it  is  clearly  incompetent 
without  producing  them. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Under  favor,  Mr.  President,  I  have  no  list  of  these 
documents  ;  none  has  been  furnished. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Does  not  the  question  relate  to  the  list  which  has  been 
furnished  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  relates  to  the  people  whose  names  have  been  put 
upon  the  list ;  but  I  have  no  list  of  the  documents  at  all.  I  have  only  a  list  of 
the  facts  that  such  appointments  were  made,  but  I  have  no  list  of  the  letters, 
whether  they  came  from  the  President  or  from  the  Secretary,  or  from  anybody 
else 

Tlie  Chief  Justice.  In  the  form  in  which  the  question  is  put  the  Chief  Jus- 
tice thinks  it  is  not  objectionable.  If  any  senator  desires  to  have  the  question 
taken  by  the  Senate,  he  will  put  it  to  the  Senate.  (To  the  managers,  no 
senator  speaking.)      You  can  put  the  question  in  the  form  proposed. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  State  whether  any  of  the  letters  of 
authority  which  you  have  mentioned,  came  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  or  from 
what  other  officer. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  understand  the  witness  is  not  to  answer  by  whom  they  were 
sent. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  believe  I  have  tbis  witness. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  instruct  the  witness.  (To  tbe 
witness.)  You  are  not  to  answer  at  present  by  whom  these  documents  were 
signed.     You  may  say  from  whom  they  came. 

The  Witness.  They  came  from  the  President. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  All  of  them  1 

A.  Such  is  the  usual  course.     I  know  of  no  exception. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  letter  of  authority  for  the  chief  clerk,  acting  as  Sec- 
retary of  State,  which  did  not  come  from  the  President  1 

A.  I  do  not, 

Q.  Will  you,  upon  your  return  to  the  office,  examine  if  there  is  any,  and 
report  to  me  ? 

A.  I  will. 

By  Mr.  Staxbery  : 

Q.  Mr.  Chew,  I  see  by  this  list  only  one  instance  of  the  removal  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  a  head  of  department  during  the  session  of  the  Senate,  and  that  was 
an  early  one.  May  13,  1800.  You  know  nothing  yourself  about  the  circum- 
stances of  that  removal  1 

A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  that  officer  had  refused  to  resign  when  requested 
or  not? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  In  your  knowledge  since  you  have  been  in  the  Department  of  State  in  the 
last  thirty-four  years,  do  you  know  of  any  instance  in  which  a  head  of  a  depart- 
ment when  he  has  received  a  request  from  the  President  to  resign  has  refused 
to  resign  ? 


362  IMPEACHMENT    OP   THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  ]\IanagC'r  Butler.  Stop  a  moment ;  I  object  to  that. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  press  the  question? 

Mr.  i^TANBERV.  Not  now,  sir.     We  have  the  records. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  records  of  the  department  to  ascertain  under  what 
circumstances  it  was  that  President  Adams  removf^d  Mr.  Pickering  from  the 
head  of  the  State  Department  in  ]S00,  while  the  Senate  was  in  session  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Do  joxi  know  that  he  was  removed  while  the  Senate  was  in  session  of  your 
own  knowledge  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Staxbery  (to  the  managers.)  You  have  proved  it,  gentlemen,  your- 
selves. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  now  offer,  sir,  from  the  ninth  volume  of  the  works  of 
John  Adams 

Mr.  Stanbery.  There  you  will  find  it,  I  guess. 

Mr.  31anager  Butler.  I  offer  from  the  ninth  volume  of  Little  &  Brown's 
edition  of  1S54  of  the  works  of  John  Adams,  by  his  grandson,  Charles  Francis 
Adams,  what  purport  to  be  official  lettei's  from  Timothy  Pickering,  Secretary  of 
State,  to  John  Adams,  President,  and  from  John  Adams  to  him.  Is  there  any 
objection  to  my  reading  them  ? 

Mr.  JoHNSOAi.  Will  you  state  the  page,  Mr.  Manager? 

Mr.  Mai>ager  Butler.  Pages  53,  54,  55.  I  offer  these  printed  copies  as  the 
best  evidence  of  official  letters  of  that  date,  it  is  so  long  ago.  We  have  not  been 
able  to  find  any  record  of  them  thus  far,  but  we  are  still  in  search.  Is  there  any 
objection  ? 

Mr.  Staxbery.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  I  will  read  them : 

Sir  :  As  I  perceive  a  necessity  of  introducing  a  change  in  the  aclministration  of  the  office 
of  State,  I  think  it  proper  to  make  this  communication  ot  it  to  the  present  Secretary  of  State, 
that  he  may  liave  an  opportunity  of  resigning,  if  he  chooses.  I  should  wish  the  day  on 
which  liis  resignation  is  to  take  place  to  be  named  by  himself.  I  wish  for  an  answer  to  this 
letter  on  or  before  Monday  morning,  because  the  nomination  of  a  successor  must  be  sent  to 
the  Senate  as  soon  as  they  sit. 

With  esteem,  I  am,  sir,  your  most  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

JPHN  ADAMS. 

To  T.  PlCKEUlXG,  Secretary  of  State. 

[7'.  Pickering,  Secretary  of  State,  to  John  Adams.'] 

DErAUTMKNT  OF  STATE,  Philadelphia,  12  May,  1800. 

SiK:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter,  dated  last  Saturday,  stating  that, 
"  as  yoti  perceive  a  necessity  of  introducing  a  change  in  the  administration  of  the  office  of 
State,  you  thinlc  it  jjroper  to  make  this  communication  of  it  to  the  present  Secretary  of  State, 
that  he  may  lia\e  an  opitortunity  of  resigning  if  he  chooses  ;"  and  that  "you  would  wish 
the  day  on  which  his  resignation  is  to  take  place  to  be  named  by  himself" 

Several  matters  of  nnportance  in  the  office,  in  which  my  agency  will  be  useful,  will  require 
my  diligent  attention  until  about  the  close  of  the  present  (piarter.  I  had,  indeed,  contem- 
plated a  continuance  in  oilice  until  the  4th  of  March  next,  when,  if  Mr.  .letierson  was  elected 
President,  (an  event  which,  in  your  conversation  with  me  last  week,  you  considered  as  cer- 
tain,) I  e.xpectt^d  to  go  out,  of  course.  An  aiiprciiciision  of  that  event  first  led  me  to  determine 
not  to  remove  my  family  this  j'ear  to  the  city  of  Washington;  because  to  establish  them  tiiero 
would  oblige  me  to  incur  an  e.xtruordinary  exjjense  which  I  had  not  the  means  of  defraying; 
whereas,  by  separating  myself  from  my  family,  and  living  there  eight  or  nine  months  with 
strict  economy,  I  hoped  to  save  enough  to  meet  that  cxiiense,  should  the  occasion  occm\  Or, 
if  I  then  went  out  of  office,  that  saving  would  eiuiblc  me  to  subsist  my  family  a  few  mouths 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  363 

longer,  and  perhaps  aid  me  in  transporting  them  into  tlie  woods,  where  I  had  land,  though 
all  wild  and  unproductive,  and  where,  like  my  first  ancestor  in  New  England,  I  expected  to 
commence  a  settlement  on  bare  creation.  I  am  happy  that  I  now  have  tins  resource,  and 
that  those  most  dear  to  me  have  fortitude  enough  to  look  at  the  scene  without  dismay,  and 
even  without  regret.  Nevertheless,  after  deliberately  reflecting  on  the  overture  you  have 
been  pleased  to  make  to  me,  I  do  not  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  resign. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &,c., 

TIMOTHY  PICKERING. 

PlllLADELl'iilA,  12  May,  ISOO. 
Sliv :  Divers  causes  and  considerations,  essential  to  the  administration  of  the  government, 
in  my  judgment,  requiring  a  change  in  the  Departmant  of  State,  you  are  hereby  discharged 
from  any  further  service  as  Secretary  of  State. 

JOHN  ADAMS, 
President  of  the  United  States. 
To  Timothy  Pickering. 

Now,  will  the  Senate  allow  the  executive  journal  of  the  Senate,  of  May  12, 
ISOO,  to  be  brought  up,  by  which  we  propose  to  show  that  at  the  same  hour, 
on  the  same  day,  Mr.  Adams,  the  President,  sent  a  nomination  to  the  Senate  1 

Mr.  Sta.xbery.  Do  I  understand  the  manager  to  say,  "  the  same  hour?" 
Do  you  expect  to  prove  it  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  should  think,  when  we  come  to  look  at  the  corres- 
pondence, that  I  am  wrong  ;  I  think  the  sending  to  the  Senate  was  a  little 
previous.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  You  do? 

Jlr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  And  you  expect  to  prove  that? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do.  [After  a  pause.]  I  have  not  yet  heard  a  de- 
cision upon  the  question  whether  I  am  to  have  the  journal. 

Mr.  Staxbbry.  Certainly  ;  we  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  is  the  executive  journal,  and  I  suppose  it  cannot 
be  brought  in  unless  the  Senate  directs  it.     I  will  say  it  is  not  printed. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  the  journal  be  furnished  for  that 
purpose.     I  suppose  there  will  be  no  objection. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Charles  E.  Creecy  recalled. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q,  You  have  been  sworn  once  in  this  case? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  [Handing  a  paper  to  the  witness,]  You  have  told  us  that  you  were  appoint- 
ment clerk  in  the  Treasury.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  handwriting  of  Andrew 
Johnson  ? 

A.  1  am, 

Q.  Is  that  his  handwriting  ? 

A.  It  is. 

Q.  Did  you  produce  this  letter  from  the  archives  of  the  Treasury  to-day  in 
obedience  to  a  summons  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  it  will  be  remembered 
that  the  answer  of  the  President  to  the  first  article  says,  in  words : 

And  this  has  ever  since  remained,  and  Avas  the  opinion  of  the  respondent  at  the  time 
when  he  was  forced  as  aforesaid  to  consider  and  decide  what  act  or  acts  should  and  might 
lawfully  be  done  by  this  respondent,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  to  cause  the  said 
Stanton  to  surrender  the  said  office. 

This  respondent  was  also  aware  that  this  act—  * 

The  tenure-of-civil-office  act — 

Was  understood  and  intended  to  be  an  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the  Congress  by  which 
that  act  was  passed  ;  that  the  power  to  remove  executive  officers  for  cause  might,  by  law,  be 


364  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

taken  from  the  President  and  vested  in  him  and  the  Senate  jointly ;  and  althono-h  this 
respondent  liad  arrived  at  and  still  retained  the  opinion  above  expressed,  and  verily  believed, 
as  he  still  believes,  that  the  said  first  section  of  the  last-mentioned  act  was  and  is  wholly 
inoperative  and  void  by  reason  of  its  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

And  this  respondent,  further  ansvverino:,  says,  that  it  is  provided  in  and  by  the  second 
section  of  "An  act  to  regulate  tlie  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  that  the  President  may  sus- 
pend an  officer  from  the  performance  of  the  duties  of  the  office  held  by  him,  for  certain  causes 
therein  designated,  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Senate,  and  until  the  case  shall  be  acted 
on  b^'  the  Senate  ;  that  this  respondent,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  was  advised,  and 
he  verily  believed  and  still  believes,  that  the  executive  power  of  removal  from  office  confided 
to  him  by  the  Constitution  as  aforesaid  includes  the  power  of  suspension  from  office  at  the 
pleastne  of  the  President;  and  this  respondent,  by  the  order  aforesaid,  did  suspend  the 
said  Stanton  from  office,  not  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Senate,  or  until  the  Senate  should 
have  acted  upon  the  case,  but  by  force  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  him  by  tiie  Con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  United  States,  indefinitely  and  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President. 

Now,  the  second  section  of  the  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil 
offices  provides : 

That  when  any  officer  appointed  as  aforesaid,  excepting  judges  of  the  United  States  courts, 
shall,  during  a  recess  of  the  Senate,  be  shown  by  evidence  satisfactory  to  the  President  to  be 
guilty  of  misconduct  in  office  or  crime,  or  for  any  reason  shall  become  incapable  or  legally 
disqualified  to  perform  its  duties,  in  such  case,  and  in  no  other,  the  President  may  suspend 
such  officer  and  designate  some  suitable  person  to  perform  temporarily  the  duties  of  such 
office  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Senate,  and  until  the  ease  shall  be  acted  upon  by  the 
Senate. 

The  eighth  section  provides  : 

That  whenever  the  President  shall,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  desig- 
nate, authorize,  or  employ  any  person  to  perform  the  dudes  of  any  office,  he  shall  forthwith 
notify  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  thereof. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  Mr.  President  and  senators,  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  says  in  his  answer  that  he  suspended  Mr.  Stanton,  under  the 
Constitution,  indefinitely  and  at  his  pleasure.  I  propose,  now,  unless  it  be 
objected  to,  to  show  that  that  is  false  under  his  own  hand,  and  I  have  his  letter 
to  that  efiect,  Avhich,  if  there  is  no  objection,  I  will  read,  the  signature  of  which 
was  identified  by  0.  E.  Creecy. 

[The  letter  was  handed  to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.] 

Mr.  S'i"Ai\BERV.  We  see  no  inconsistency  with  that  part  of  the  act,  certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  was  a  cjuestion  I  did  not  put  to  you.  I  asked 
you  if  you  had  any  objection. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  tell  you  we  see  no  inconsistency,  much  less  falsehood,  in 
that  letter. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  To  that  1  answer  the  falsehood  is  not  in  the  letter,  but 
in  the  answer. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler  thereupon  read  the  letter,  as  follows  : 

ExKcuTivE  Mansion,  Wasuixoton,  D.  C, 

August  J  4,  1^67. 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of  Congress  of 
March  2,  JHG7,  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  you  are  hereby 
notified  that  on  the  J2tli  instant  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  was  suspended  from  office  as  Secre- 
tary of  War,  and  General  Ulysses  S.  Grant  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interiiru. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 
Hon.  Hugh  McCullocm, 

Secretary  of  the  Trtasunj. 

I  wish  to  call  attention  again,  because  it  may  have  escaped  the  attention  of 
some  senators • 

Mr.  Curtis.  Wc  object  to  the  gentleman  arguing  the  question. 

Mr.  Stanbkry.  It  is  time  certainly  we  should  know  what  all  this  discussion 
means.     What  question  is  now  before  the  Senate?     What  is  your  question! 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  365 

Let  lis  know  whether  we  have  any  objection ;  how  it  is  that  this  statement  is 
made. 

Mr.  ]\ranager  T'utlki?.  I  am  endeavoring  to  show,  sir,  that  while  the  Presi- 
dent ?avs  he  did  not  suspend  Mr.  Stanton  under  the  tenure-of-office  act,  and  that 
he  had  come  to  tlie  conclusion  that  he  had  a  right  to  suspend  him  before  August 
12,  1867,  without  leave  of  the  tenure-ofoffice  act,  and  without  leave  of  the  Sen- 
ate, yet,  acting  under  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  to  M-hich  he  refers  in  his  letter, 
he  expressly  says  in  that  letter  that  he  did  suspend  him  under  this  act. 

Mr.  StAiXBERY.  We  understand  all  that. 

Mr.  Curtis.  He  does  not  say  any  such  thing.  We  do  not  object  to  the  hon- 
orable manager  offering  his  evidence ;  we  object  to  his  arguing  upon  the  effect 
of  the  evidence  at  this  stage. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  argued  nothing,  sir,  except  to  read  the  law. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  Managers,  the  executive  journal  is  now 
here. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  now  produce  the  executive  journal  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  JoHXSON.  Of  what  date  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Monday,  May  12,  1800.  May  9  is  the  last  previous 
date  of  executive  session  : 

Monday,  May  12,  1800. 

The  following  written  messages  were  received  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  by 
Mr.  Shaw,  his  secretary  : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Senate  : 

I  nominate  the  honorable  John  Marshall,  esq.,  of  Virginia,  to  be  Secretary  of  State,  in 
place  of  the  honorable  Timothy  Pickering,  esq.,  removed. 

The  honorable  Samuel  Dexter,  esq.,  of  Massachusetts,  to  be  Secretary  of  the  Department 
of  War,  in  the  place  of  the  honorable  John  Marshall,  nominated  for  promotion  to  the  office 
of  State. 

JOHN  ADAMS. 

United  States,  May  12,  1800. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Senate  : 

I  nominate  William  H.  Harrison,  of  the  Northwestern  Territory,  to  be  governor  of  the 
Indiana  Territory. 

JOHN  ADAMS. 

United  States,  May  12,  1800. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Senate  : 

I  nominate  Israel  Ludlow,  of  the  Northwestern  Territory,  to  be  register  of  the  land  office 
at  Cincinnati. 

James  Findley,  «fec. 

Then  follows  a  long  list  of  nominations  : 
Gentlemen  of  the  Senate  : 

I  nominate  Seth  Lewis,  esq.,  of  Tennessee,  to  be  chief  justice  of  the  Mississippi  Terri- 
tory, in  the  place  of  William  McGuire,  esq.,  resigned. 

^  ^  16  JOHN  ADAMS. 

United  States,  May  12,  1800. 

The  messages  were  read. 

Ordered,  That  they  lie  for  consideration. 

Tuesday,  May  13,  1800. 

The  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  of 
the  12th  in.sta'nt,  and  the  nominations  contained  therein,  of  John  Marshall  and  Samuel 
Dexter,  to  office,  whereupon, 

Rewlted,  That  they  do  advise  and  consent  to  the  appointments  agreeably  to  the  nomina- 
tion. 

Ordered,  That  the  Secretary  lay  this  resolution  before  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Will  you  please  to  read  where  it  appears  there,  at  what  hour, 
what  time  of  day,  that  was  done  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  not  undertaken  to  state  the  hour.  I  stated 
directly  to  the  Senate,  in  answer  to  you,  that  I  thought   that  the  letter  went  to 


366  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  Senate  with  the  nomination,  and  I  believed  it  would  appear,  from  an  exam- 
ination of  the  whole  case  that  the  nomination  of  a  successor  went  to  the  Senate 
prior  to  the  letter  going  to  Mr.   Pickering. 

Mr.  S'lAN'BERY.  The  honorable  manager  will  allow  me  to  say  he  said  he 
expected  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  Senate  heard  what  I  said.  I  said  I  expected  it 
would  appear  from  the  whole  matter,  exactly  using  that  phra«e.  I  am  quite  sure 
I  know  what  I  said.  But,  however,  as  it  was  the  duty  of  John  Adams  to  send 
it  first  to  the  Senate,  I  presume  he  did  his' duty  and  sent  it  first  to  the  Senate 
before  he  sent  it  to  Pickering.  I  mean  to  say  further,  that  it  being  all  done  on 
the  same  day,  it  must  be  taken  to  be  at  the  same  time  in  law.  But  another 
piece  of  evidence  I  adduce  is,  that  he  asked  Pickering  to  send  in  his  resigna- 
tion because  it  was  necessary  to  send  a  successor  to  the  Senate  as  soon  as  they 
sat,  which  he  did. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  honorable  managers  require  the  executive  jour- 
nal any  further? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No  further. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  have  a  certified  copy  of  it. 

[The  journal  was  returned  to  the  Secretary's  office.] 

Charles  E.  Creecy  recalled. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  [Submitting  papers  to  witness.]  Upon  receipt  of  that  notification  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  that  he  had  suspended  Mr.  Stanton  according  to 
the  provisions  of  the  civil  tenure-of-office  act,  what  was  done  ? 

A.  A  copy  of  the  executive  communication  was  sent  to  the  Treasurer,  First 
Comptroller,  First  Auditor,  Second  Auditor,  and  Third  Auditor. 

Q,.  Plave  3^ou  the  letters  of  transmittal  there? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  "Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  read  them? 

A.  Here  is  one : 

Treasury  Department,  August  15,  1867. 

Sir:  In  accordance  with  the  lequiiements  of  the  eij^hth  sectiou  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act 
repfulatinp^  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  ofKce.s,"  I  tnuisinit  herewith  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  the 
President,  notifying  this  department  of  the  suspension  of  Hon.  E.  M.  tjtanton  from  the  office 
of  Secrctiny  of  War.  and  the  authorizing  of  General  Ulysses  S.  Grant  to  act  as  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim. 

I  am,  very  respectfully, 

HUGH  Mcculloch, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
R.  \V.  T.^VI.OR,  Esq.,  I'lrst  Comptroller,  Sfc.  ' 

The  same  letter  was  sent  to  the  others. 

Q.  Are  those  officers  the  proper  accounting  and  disbursing  officers  of  the 
depart  ment  ? 

A.  'J'liey  are  for  the  War  Department. 

Q.  Then,  if  I  understand  you,  all  the  disbursing  officers  of  the  Treasury  for 
the  War  Department  were  notified  in  pursuance  of  the  act? 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  object  to  that. 

Mr.  EvART^^.  That  is  a  question  of  law. 

^Ir.  Mannger  Butler.  Were  thereupon  notified? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  there  to  know  of  this  transmission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  prepare  the  papers  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  prepare  them  in  pursuance  of  any  other  act  of  Congress  except 
the  civil  tcnure-of-ofiice  act  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  367 

A.-  No,  sir. 

l\rr.  Manager  Butlkr.  That  is  all.     [A  pause.] 

Mr.  CoN.XKSS.  I  was  going  to  move  a  recess;  but  if  the  witness  is  to  be 
cross-examined  now 

Mi\  Stanbery.  That  will  answer.     I  can  wait  until  the  recess. 

Mr.  HowARP.  Let  the  examination  of  this  witness  be  finished. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  can  say  to  the  Senate  that  we  shall  reach  within  a 
few  minutes  a  place  to  rest. 

The  CniEi'  .fuSTiCK.  Does  the  senator  from  California  withdraw  his  motion? 

Mr.  Conn  ESS.  I  understand  the  counsel  to  wish  a  recess  at  this  time.  I 
move  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes. 

The  Chief  Ji!ST!CE.  The  honorable  manager  informs  the  Senate  that  he 
expects  to  close  his  evidence  within  a  short  tinn'. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  expect  to  close  it  with  ...ertain  exceptions  which  I 
shall  name. 

iMr.  CoNNESS.  There  appears  to  be  a  difference  of  opinion  ;  I  only  desire  to 
represent  the  wishes  of  the  body.     I  think  we  had  better  have  a. recess. 

The  Chief  Justice.  How  long  ? 

IMr.  Conness.  I  move  that  the  Senate  take  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Chief  Justice  resumed  the  chair  at  fifteen 
minutes  to  thi-ee  o'clock,  and  called  the  Senate  to  order. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  There  seem  to  be  but  few  senators  present,  and  I  move  that 
the  Senate  adjourn. 

Mr.  Sumner.  No;  I  hope  not. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  If  there  is  any  chance  of  getting  them  in,  I  will  withdraw  the 
motion. 

Mr.  Sumner.  The  better  motion  would  be  a  call  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Conness.  That  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  it  is  suggested  to  me  by  my  colleagues 

The  Chief  Justice.  Is  the  motion  withdrav/n  ? 

Mr.  Conness.  I  will  withdraw  it  at  present. 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  is  suggested  now  by  my  colleagues  that  I  should  make  known 
to  the  senators  that  it  is  our  intention,  if  the  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  prose- 
cution should  be  closed  to-day,  as  we  suppose  it  will  be,  to  ask  the  senators  to 
grant  to  the  President's  counsel  three  days  in  which  to  prepare  and  arrange 
their  proofs,  and  enable  themselves  to  proceed  with  the  defence.  We  find  our- 
selves in  a  condition  in  which  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  make  this  request, 
and  I  think,  and  my  colleagues  agree  with  me  in  that 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  suggests  to  the  counsel  that  it  would 
be  better  to  postpone  that  matter  until  the  Senate  is  full. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  reason  why  I  thought  of  making  it  known  at  this  moment, 
Mr.  Chief  Justice,  was  that  I  was  under  the  apprehension  that  there  might  be 
some  motion  for  an  adjournment,  which  might  in  some  way  interfere  with  this 
application,  when  it  would  not  be  in  order  for  me  to  present  it  after  such  a 
motion  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  in  the  schedule  "  B," 
offered  a  short  time  since  from  the  State  Department,  the  first  name  that  appears 
among  those  appointed  during  the  session  of  the  Senate  is  that  of  Timothy 
Pickering,  who  from  that  record  appears  to  have  been  appointed  Postmaster 
General  on  the  1st  day  of  June,  1794.  We  think  it  a  proper  time  to  call  the 
attention  of  counsel  for  the  respondent  to  the  statutes  which  we  suppose  explain 
the  nature  of  that  proceeding.  This  is  the  only  appointment  of  the  head  of  a 
department  which  appears  from  this  record  as  having  been  made  during  the 
session  of  the  Senate.  The  statutes  are  first  a  statute  of  the  22d  of  September, 
1789,  in  which  it  is  provided  "that  there  shall  be  appointed  a  Postmaster  Gen- 
eral; his  powers  and  salary,  and  the  compensation  to  the  assistant  or  clerk  and 


368  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

deputies  -whicli  he  may  appoint,  and  the  regulations  of  tlie  Post  Office  shall  be 
the  same  as  they  last  were  under  the  resolutions  and  ordinances  of  the  late  Con- 
gress." And  it  was  provided  in  the  second  section  "that  this  act  shall  continue 
in  force  until  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  Congress,  and  no  longer."  Show- 
ing that  it  was  merely  a  continuance  of  the  post  office  system  that  existed 
under  the  Continental  Congress. 

Mr  Johnson.  Will  the  manager  give  the  date  of  the  act  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  That  act  was  passed  on  the  22d  of  Si'ptemher, 
1789.  On  the  4tli  day  of  August,  1790,  the  Congress  passed  a  supplementary 
brief  act  in  these  words  : 

That  the  act  passed  the  last  session  of  Congress  intituled  an  act  for  the  temporary  establish- 
ment of  the  Post  Office  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,  continued  iu  force  until  the  end  of  the 
next  session  of  Congress,  and  no  longer. 

Which  was  a  continuance  of  the  continental  system  of  post  office  arrange- 
ment.    On  the  3d  day  of  March,  1791,  Congress  passed  another  act : 

That  the  act  passed  the  first  session  of  Congress  intituled  "  an  act  for  the  temporary  estab- 
lishment of  the  Post  Office,"  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  continued  in  full  force  until  the  end 
of  the  next  session  of  Congress,  and  no  longer. 

On  the  20th  day  of  February,  1792,  Congress  passed  an  act  making  various 
arrangements  in  regard  to  the  administration  of  the  Post  Office  and  establishing 
certain  post  routes  ;  and  it  is  provided  in  that  act :  v  ,  v 

That  the  act  passed  the  last  session  of  Congress  intituled  "an  act  to  continue  in  force  for 
a  limited  time  an  act  entitled  'An  act  for  the  temporary  establishment  of  the  Post  Office,'  " 
be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  coutirined  in  full  force  until  the  1st  day  of  June  next,  and  no 
longer. 

This  act  from  which  I  now  read  did  not  contain  any  provision  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  post  office  department  as  a  branch  of  the  government,  but  the 
last  section  provided  : 

That  this  act  shall  be  in  force  for  the  term  of  two  years  from  the  said  first  day  of  June 
next,  and  no  longer. 

Which  would  continue  this  provisional  post  office  system  until  the  first  day 
of  June,  1794.   ' 

On  the  Sth  day  of  May,  1794,  the  Congress  passed  an  act  covering  the  whole 
ground  of  the  post  office  system,  and  in  that  act  they  provided  for  the  establish- 
ment, at  the  seat  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  of  a  general  Post 
Office,  and  that  there  should  be  one  Postmaster  General,  which  is  the  first  act 
■which  provides  for  the  appointment  of  a  Postmaster  General ;  and  then  there 
were  all  the  provisions  in  regard  to  the  details  of  the  office.  The  last  section 
of  this  act,  which  was  passed  on  the  Sth  day  of  May,  1794,  declared  : 
That  this  act  shall  be  in  force  from  tlie  Jst  day  of  June  next. 

Which  was  the  day  on  which  the  provisional  post  office  department  which 
■was  the  continuance;  of  the  contiiu-ntal  sj'stem  terminated.  I'hat  day  was 
Sunday;  but  on  that  day  fiencral  Washington,  who  was  then  President, 
thought  tit,  although  the  Senate  was  nominally  in  session,  and  although  it  was 
Sunday,  to  make  the  appointment  ot  Timothy  Pickering,  as  Postmaster  Gen- 
eral. 1  suppose  it  will  appear  from  the  journal  of  the  Senate  that  he  was 
immediately  nominated  to  the  Senate  and  confirmed.  This  fully  explains  the 
nature  of  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Pickering,  who  is,  as  appears  from  this  record, 
the  only  person  who  was  made  the  head  of  a  department  by  an  appointment 
during  the  session  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  WiLSON.  Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  coun- 
sel for  the  respondent  to  an  entry  on  the  executive  journal  of  the  Senate 
of  the  10th  of  May,  1800,  also  of  the  12th  of  May,  ISOO,  and  the  13th,  show- 
ing that  the  Senate  at  that  tiihe  met  at  an  earlier  hour  than  12  o'clock.  On 
page  93  of  the  journal  of  the  Senate  for  May  10,  1800,  it  is  entered  : 
The  Senate  adjourned  to  1 J  o'clock  on  Monday  morning. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDEXT.  369 

On  Monday  mornin<^,  May  12,  ISOO,  the  Senate  mot,  and  the  manner  of 
adjourniniMit  is  as  follows  : 

After  the  consiJciation  of  the  executive  business,  the  Senate  adjourned  to  II  o'clock  to- 
morrow morning.     (I'lige  94.) 

Tuesday,  May  13,  1800. 
The  Senate  met  in  pursuance  of  said  adjintrnmoiit  at  11  o'clock. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  we 
ofter  in  evidence  several  executive  messages  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  of  dates  respectively  December  16,  18f!7  ;  December  17,  1SG7  ;  again, 
December  16,  1S67;  the  fourth,  January  13,  1868;  and  the  fifth,  December  19, 
1867. 

[The  messages  communicate  information  of  the  suspension  of  John  H.Patter- 
son from  the  office  of  assessor  of  internal  revenue  for  the  fourth  district  of  Vir- 
ginia; of  Charles  Lee  Moses  from  the  duties  of  counsel  at  Brunai,  Borneo;  of 
John  H.  Anderson  from  the  office  of  collector  of  internal  revenue  for  the  fourth 
district  of  Virginia  ;  of  Charles  H.  Hopkins,  assessor  of  internal  revemie  for  the- 
first  district  of  Georgia,  and  of  John  B.  Lowry,  postmaster  at  Danville,  Virginia.] 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  I  also  offer  in  evidence,  Mr.  President  and  Senators, 
the  communication  of  the  Secretary  of  State  accompanying  one  of  the  messages 
just  presented,  in  which,  under  date  of  December  19,  1867,  he  thus  addresses 
the  President  of  the  United  States  : 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  section  two  of  tlie  act  regulating  tlie  tenure 
of  certain  cjvil  ofltices,  passed  March  2,  1867,  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  Charles  Lee 
Moses,  United  States  consul  at  Brunai,  Borneo,  was,  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate;, 
suspended  from  the  functions  of  his  otKce,  and  that  Oliver  B.  Bradford,  consular  clerk  at, 
Shangbae,  was  appointed  to  till  the  place  temporarily. 

I  suppose  I  need  not  read  all  the  details,  "We  offer  in  evidence  all  these' 
messages,  with  the  accompanying  papers,  as  received  by  the  Senate  from  the 
President. 

Mr.  Manager  B[:tler.  I  believe  now,  sir,  that  I  may  inform  the  Seuat^e  that 
the  case  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  is  substantially  closed.. 
There  may  be  a  Avitness  or  two,  who  are  on  their  way  here,  which  we  shall  ask. 
on  Monday  morning  leave  to  put  in.  Their  testimony  is  substantially  cumula- 
tive, not  very  material ;  and  it  is  possible  that  Ave  may  have  left  out  a  piece  or 
two  of  documentary  evidence  in  the  nature  of  public  documents..  Until  we  can 
examine  carefully  all  the  testimony  to  see  that  we  have  omitted  nothing,  we 
should  not  like  to  preclude  ourselves  from  offering  that.  But  Avith  these  imma- 
terial exceptions,  and  I  trust  they  will  turn  out  to  be  no  exceptions  at  all,  avc 
have  closed  the  case  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  the  counsel  for  the  President  take  no  excep- 
tion to  what  is  now  proposed  by  the  honorable  managers.  It  seems  to  ixs  quite 
reasonable  that  they  should  have  opp:)rtunity  to  look  over  the  ground  and 
ascertain  Avhether  anything  has  been  omitted,  and  also  if  they  find  that  wit- 
nesses come  here  before  the  next  session,  whose  testimony  Avill  be  in  tlie  nature 
of  cumulative  evidence,  Ave  sliall  take  no  exception  to  that. 

I  noAv  desire  to  submit,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  to  the  Senate  a  motion  on  behalf 
of  the  President's  counsel  that  Avhen  this  court  adjpurns  it  adjourn  until 
Thursday  next,  to  allow  to  the  counsel  of  the  President  three  Avorking  days  to 
enable  tliem  to  collect,  collate,  and  arrange  their  proofs  so  as  to  present  the 
defence  to  the  Senate  Avilh  as  little  delay  as  practicable,  and  so  as  to  make  that 
consecutive  and  proper  impression  Avhich  really  belongs  to  it. 

We  have  been  Avholly  unable  to  do  this  during  the  progress  of  the  trial,  and 
before  the  trial  Avas  begun  we  had  no  time  Avhatever  to  apj)ly  to  this  purpose. 
We  think  we  can  assure  the  Senate  that  it  Avill  very  little,  if  at  all,  proti-act  tlie 
trial,  because  certainly  those  gentlemen  of  the  Senate  who  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  practicing  law  are  quite  aware  of  the  fact  tho-t  more  time  is  frequently 
24  I  P 


370  IMPEACHM3NT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

consumocl  in  tlifi  introduction  of  evidence  for  the  want  of  having  it  properly 
arranged  and  presented  than  wouhl  have  been  connmned  if  the  proper  etforts 
had  been  made  outside  before  tlie  trial  was  begun.  We  think,  therefore,  that  we 
can  assure  the  Senate  that  a  large  part,  and  perhaps  all,  of  this  time  will  be 
saved  if  this  indulgence  can  be  granted  to  the  President's  counsel. 

We  do  not  expect  to  adduce  a  large  amount  of  oral  testimony  or  a  great  num- 
ber of  witnesses,  but  we  have  a  very  considerable  amount  of  documentary  evi- 
dence which  we  have  thus  far  not  been  able  to  collate  and  arrange,  and  some 
portions  which  Ave  have  reason  to  suppose  exist  we  have  not  yet  been  able  to 
search  out  or  find.  We  request,  therefore,  that  this  postponement  may  take 
place. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  The  rules  forbid  senators  to  make  any  explanations  in  the 
nature  of  debate.  I  therefore  submit  a  motion,  which  is  that  when  the  Senate 
adjourn,  or  rather  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  im])eachment,  shall 
adjourn  until  Wednesday  next  at  twelve  o'clock,  which  is  the  time  that,  in  my 
judgment,  should  meet  the  wants  of  the  counsel  for  the  resjiondent. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  if  it  is  in  order,  I  move  to  amend  the  motion 
made  by  the  honorable  member  from  California  by  inserting  "  Thursday"  instead 
of  "  Wednesday." 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Is  that  motion  debatable  by  the  managers? 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  not. 

Mr.  Howard.  Mr.  President,  may  I  inquire  what  is  the  question  1 

The  (;HIEF  Justice.  The  senator  from  California  moves  that  the  Senate 
sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment  adjourn  until  Wednesday  next.  The  senator 
from  Maryland  moves  to  amend  by  substituting  "  Thursday"  for  "  Wednesday." 
Senators,  you  Avho  are  in  favor  of  agreeing  to  that  motion  will  say  "  ay ;"  those 
of  the  contrary  opinion  "  no."     [The  question  being  taken.]     The  ayes  have  it. 

Mr.  Cameron.  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays.     [No,  no.] 

Mr.  Manager  Buti,er.  I  understood,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  and  I  desire  to 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  recurs  upon  the  motion  of  the  senator 
from  California  as  amended  by  the  motion  of  the  senator  from  Maryland,  tliat 
the  Senate  adjourn  until  Thursday  next,  and  upon  this  question  no  debate  is  in 
order. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  question  is  not  debatable  by  the  managers  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  not. 

Mr.  Su.MNER.   On  that  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  1  rise  for  information.  I  wish  to  inquire  whether  the  man- 
agers want  to  submit  some  remarks  upon  this  motion  for  delay  1 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  upon  the  motion  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  CoNKLlNG.  Yes,  sir.  My  purpose  is  to  find  out,  as  influencing  my  vote, 
whether  they  wish  the  motion  disposed  of,  to  the  end  that  they  may  make  some 
remarks,  or  not.  I  presume  the  senator  from  Calilbrnia  does  not  intend  to  cut 
them  off. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  had,  ]\Ir.  President,  desired  to  make  a  remark  or 
two,  and  understood  it  was  in  order. 

Mr.  Anthony.  I  understand  that  the  motion  is  not  that  the  Senate  shall 
now  adjourn,  but  that  avIkmi  the  Senate  does  adjourn  it  shall  adjourn  to  meet  on 
Thursday. 

Several  senators.  That  is  it. 

Mr.  CoNKLING.  That  is  certainly  debatable. 

Th<!  Chief  Justice.  Will  the  senator  from  California  be  good  enough  to 
state  his  motion  ? 

Mr.  Conn  ESS.  If  the  Chair  will  allow  me  to  state  it  I  will  do  so.  The 
Chair  submitted  the  question  on  the  amendment  before  I  was  aware  of  it;  else 
I  desired  to  accept  the  suggestion  of  senators  around  me  to  make  it  Thursday 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  371 

\i\  place  of  Wednesday.  What  I  desired,  in  other  words^  was  to  meet  the  con- 
currence of  the  Senate  generally. 

The  Chikf  Justick.  AVill  the  senator  from  California  allow  the  Chief 
Justice  to  ask.  is  his  motion  a  motion  that  the  Senate,  when  it  adjourns 

Mr.  CoN\Ess.  That  was  not  the  form  of  the  motion.  I  began  to  make  it  in 
that  way,  but  subsequently  gave  it  the  other  form. 

]\[r.  Cameron.  Now  I  desire 

The  Chief  Justice.  No  debate  is  in  order  on  the  motion  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Cameron.  I  am  not  going  to  debate  it.  I  want  to  ask  the  gentlemen 
managers  whether  they  will  not  be  prepared  to  go  on  witli  this  case  on  Monday  ? 
I  can  see  no  reason  why  the  other  side  should  not  be  as  well  prepared. 

ilessrs.  Managers  Bingham  and  Butler.  We  are  ready. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Order. 

Mr.  Cameron.  Mr.  President,  my  question  is 

The  Chief  Justice.  No  debate  is  iu  order.  The  senator  from  Pennsyl- 
vania is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Cameron.  I  think  if  you  will  allow  me 

The  Chief  Justice.  No  debate  is  in  order  on  a  motion  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Cameron.  I  am  not.  going  to  debate  it,  your  Honor;  but  I  have  risen 
to  ask  the  question  whether  the  managers  will  be  ready  to  go  on  with  this  case 
on  Monday  i* 

Ml'.  Manager  Bingham  and  other  managers.  We  will  be. 

Mr.  Sumner.  I  wish  to  ask  a  question  also.  I  wi:*h  to  know  if  the  honora- 
ble managers  have  any  views  to  present  to  the  Senate  sitting  now  on  the  trial 
of  this  impeachment  to  aid  the  Senate  in  deteruiiuing  this  question  of  time  ? 
On  that  I  wish  to  know  the  views  of  the  honorable  managers. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justict;  is  of  opinion  that,  pending  the  qaes- 
tion  of  adjournment,  no  debate  is  in  order  from  any  quarter.  It-  is  a  question 
exclusively  for  the  Senate.  Senators,  you  who  are  in  favor  of  the  adjournment 
of  the  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment  until  Thursday  next  will,  as 
your  names  are  called,  answer  "  yea  ;"  those  of  the  contrary  opinion  "  nay." 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  37,  nays  10  ;  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Bnckalew,  Cattell,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Davis, 
Dixou,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fowler,  Freliughuyseii,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Howard, 
Howe,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Norton,  Nye,  Patterson 
of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague, 
Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  and  Williams — 37. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Drake,  Morgan,  Pomeroy,  Stewart, 
Sumner,  and  Thayer — 10. 

Not  Voting— Messrs.  Doolittle,  Fessenden,  Harlan,  Morton,  Wade,  Wilson,  and 
Yates— 7. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  37  and  the  nays  are  10. 
So  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  stands  adjourned  until  Thurs- 
day next  at  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  should  like  to  give  notice  that  all  the  witnesses  may 
be  discharged  who  have  been  summoned  here  on  the  part  of  the  House  ol  lie^i- 
resentatives. 


3r2  IMPEA-CHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Thursday,  April  9,  1868. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamberat  12 
o'clock  and  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arras, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  also  appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  headed  by  ]\Ir.  E.  B. 
Washburne,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker 
and  Clerk,  entered  the  Senate  chamber,  and  Avere  conducted  to  the  seats  pro- 
vided for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  Avill  read  the  minutes  of  the  last  day's 
proceedin,u-s. 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate, 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment,  on  Saturday,  April  4,  1866,  but  was 
interrupted  by 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  move  that  the  further  reading  of  the  jour- 
nal be  dispensed  with. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection  the  further  reading  of  the 
iournal  with  be  dispensed  with.     The  Chair  hears  no  objection. 

Gentlemen  Managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  have  you 
any  further  evidence  to  introduce  ? 

Ml'.  Manager  Butlrk.  We  have  a  single  witness,  I  believe. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  managers  will  proceed  with  their  evidence. 

M.  H.  Wood  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  Where  was  your  place  of  residence  before  the  war  ? 

Answer.  Tuscaloosa,  Alabama. 

Q.  Did  you  serve  in  the  Union  army  during  the  war  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q,  From  what  time  to  what  time? 

A.  From  July,  1861,  to  July,  1865. 

Q.  Some  time  in  September,  1866,  did  you  call  upon  President  Johnson, 
presenting  him  testimonials  for  employment  in  the  government  service  1 

A.  1  did. 

Q.  What  time  was  it  in  1866  ? 

A.  The  20lh  or  21st  day  of  September. 

Q.  How  do  you  fix  the  time  1 

A.  Partially  from  memory,  and  partially  from  the  journal  of  the  Ebbitt  House. 

Q.  How  long  before  that  had  he  returned  from  his  trip  to  Chicago,  to  the 
tomb  of  Douglas  ? 

A.  My  recollection  is  that  he  returned  on  the  15th  or  16th.  I  awaited  his 
retm-n  in  this  city. 

Q.  Did  you  present  your  testimonials  to  him  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  he  examine  them  ? 

A.  Part  of  them. 

Q.  What  then  took  place  between  you  ? 

j\lr.  STANiiEiiv.   What  do  you  propo.se  to  prove,  Mr.  Manager  ? 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLER.  What  took  place  between  the  President  and  this  wit- 
ness. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Has  it  anything  to  do  with  this  case  ? 

]yir.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  373 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Under  what  article  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  As  to  the  intent  of  the  President  in  the  several  articles. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  To  do  what? 

Mr.  ]\ranager  Butler.  To  oppose  Congress.  (To  the  witness  )  Will  you 
go  on,  sir?     What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  lie  said  ray  claims  for  g-overnment  employment  were  good,  or  worthy 
of  attention ;  I  will  not  fix  the  words. 

Q.  What  next? 

A.  He  inquired  about  my  political  sentiments  somewhat,  noticing  that  I  was 
not  a  political  man  or  not  a  politician.  I  told  him  I  was  a  Union  man,  a  loyal 
man,  and  in  favor  of  the  administration  ;  that  I  had  confidence  in  Congress  and 
in  the  Chief  Executive.  He  then  asked  me  if  I  knew  of  any  differences  between 
himself  and  Congress  I  told  him  I  did  ;  that  I  knew  some  differences  on  minor 
points.     He  then  said  :  "  They  are  not  minor  points." 

Q.  Go  on,  sir. 

A.  And  the  "influence"  or  "patronage" — I  am  not  sure  which — "  of  tbese 
offices  shall  be  in  my  favor."     That  was  the  meaning. 

Q.  Were  those  the  words  ? 

A.  I  will  not  swear  that  they  were  the  words. 

Q.  "  Shall  be  in  my  favor;"  what  did  you  say  to  that  ? 

A.  I  remarked  that  under  those  conditions  T  could  not  accept  an  appointment 
of  any  kind,  if  my  influence  was  to  be  used  for  him  in  contradistinction  to  Con- 
gress, and  retired. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  gentleman  in  this  city  by  the  name  of  Koppel  ? 

A.  I  do,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  talked  with  him  since  you  have  been  in  the  city  ? 

A.  I  have  called  on  him  when  I  first  came  in  the  city  ;  I  have  seen  him  fre- 
quently. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  i\Ir.  Koppel  yesterday  morning  that  all  you  could  say  about 
the  President  was  more  in  his  favor  than  against  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Koppel  that  when  you  were  brought  up  to  be  examined, 
since  you  arrived  in  this  city,  there  was  an  attempt  to  make  ycm  say  things 
which  you  would  not  say  ? 

A.  I  did  not,  sir.  I  might,  in  explanation  of  that  question,  say  that  there 
was  a  misunderstanding  between  the  managers  and  a  gentleman  in  Boston  in 
regard  to  an  expression  that  they  supposed  I  could  testify  to,  but  that  I  could, 
not. 

Q.  Have  you  been  examined  before  this  time  since  you  came  into  this  city  ? 

A.  By  whom  ? 

Q.  Have  you  been  examined  before,  by  any  one  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Under  oath  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  first  by  ? 

A.  By  the  managers  of  the  impeachment. 

Q.  Was  your  testimony  taken  down  ? 

A,  It  was. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  or  talked  to  by  any  one  of  them  before  your  exami- 
tion  under  oath  ? 

A.  I  had  an  informal  interview  with  two  of  them  before  I  was  examined.  I 
could  hardly  call  it  an  examination. 

Q.  Which  two  of  them,  and  where  ? 

A.  By  Governor  Boutwell  and  General  Butler. 


374  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  When  ? 

A.  Monday  of  this  week. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Koppel  that  since  you  have  been  in  the  city  a  prop- 
osition was  made  to  you  that  in  case  you  woukl  give  certain  testimouy  it  would 
be  for  your  benefit  ? 

A.  1  did  not,  sir. 

Re  examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Who  is  Mr.  Koppel  ? 

A.  Mr.  Koppel  is  an  acquaintance  of  mine  on  the  avenue — a  merchant. 

Q.  What  .sort  of  mercbandi.se,  please  ? 

A.  He  is  a  manufacturer  of  garments — a  tailor.      [Laughter.] 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  sympathy  between  him  and  tlie  President? 

A.  I  have  always  supposed  that  Mr.  Koppel  was  a  southern  mau  in  spirit. 
He  came  from  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  here — ran  the  blockade. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  as  an  answer  to  my  question  of  sympathy  between  the 
President  and  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  counsel  for  the  President  has  asked  you  if  you  told  Mr.  Koppel  that 
you  had  been  asked  to  say  things  which  you  could  not  say,  or  words  to  that 
effect.  In  explanation  or  answer  of  the  question  you  said  there  w;is  a  misun- 
derstanding which  you  explained  to  Mr.  Koppel.  Will  you  have  the  kindness 
to  tell  us  what  that  misunderstanding  was  which  you  explained  to  Mr.  Koppel  1 

Mr.  Stanbeky.  We  do  not  care  about  that. 

Mr.  Mannger  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  You  put  in  a  part 
of  the  conversation.     I  have  a  right  to  the  whole  of  it. 

Mr.  Staxbeky.  We  did  not  put  it  in  at  all — only  a  certain  declaration. 

Mr.  Manager  Bu  tler.  A  certain  declaration  out  of  it,  that  is  a  part  of  the 
conversation. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Go  on  in  your  own  way. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  I  M-ill  ask,  in  the  first  place,  did  you 
explain  the  matter  to  him  1 
■   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  the  misunderstanding  was  which  you  explained  to  him  in 
that  conversation  ? 

A.  I  think,  sir,  a  gentleman  from  Boston  wrote  you  that  the  President  asked 
me  if  I  would  give  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  of  any  office  for  polit- 
ical purposes.  I  told  you  that  I  did  not  say  so  ;  the  gentleman  in  Boston  mis- 
iinderstood  me.  The  President  said  nothing  of  the  kind  to  me.  I  explained 
that  to  Mr.  Koppel,  he  probably  having  misunderstood  it. 

Q.  Did  you  explain  where  the  misunderstanding  arose  ? 

A.  I  told  him  that  I  supposed  it  must  have  occurred  in  a  conversatioa 
between  the  gentleman  in  Boston  and  myself. 

Q.  In  regard  to  what  ? 

A.  In  regard  to  the  twenty-five  per  cent. 

Q.  Where  did  that  arise  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  What  about  all  that? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  getting  this  conversation  between  Mr.  Koppel 
and  this  man, 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Not  at  all.  You  are  speaking  about  another  transaction. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No  ;  I  am  asking  you  if  you  explained  to  Mr.  Kop- 
pel where  the  idea  came  from  that  you  wen;  to  give  twenty-five  per  cent. 

Mr.  Evar'J.s.  Wc  object,  Mr,  Chief  Justice.  The  witness  has  stated  dis- 
tinctly that  nothing  occurred  between  the  President  and  himself,  and  it  is  cer- 
tainly quite  unimportant  to  this  court  what  occurred  between  this  witness  and 
another  o;cutlemau  in  Boston. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  375 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  pray  judgment  .again  ixpon  this.  The  other  side 
seek  to  put  in  the  conversation  between  a  taihir  down  in  I'ennsylvania  avenue, 
or  somewhere  else,  and  this  witness.  I  want  the  whole  of  that  conversation.  I 
supposed,  from  the  eminence  of  the  gentleman  who  asked  the  question,  that  the 
conversation  between  Mv.  Koppel,  the  tailor,  and  this  witness  was  put  in  for 
some  good  purpose,  and  if  it  was  I  want  the  whole  of  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  fact  is  not  exactly  as  is  stated  by  the  learned  manager. 
In  the  privilege  of  cross-examination  the  counsel  for  the  President  asked  this 
witness  distinctly  whether  he  had  said  so  and  so  to  a  Mr.  Koppel.  The  witness 
said  that  he  had  not,  and  then  volunteered  a  statement  that  there  might  have 
been  some  misunderstanding  between  Mr.  Koppel  and  himself  upon  that  sub- 
ject, or  some  misunderstanding  somewhere.  Our  inquiries  did  not  reach  or  ask 
for  or  bring  out  the  misunderstanding ;  but,  passing  that  point,  we  stand  h  ere 
distinctly  to  say  that  everything  which  relates  to  any  conversation  or  interview 
between  the  President  and  this  witness,  whether  as  understood  or  misunder- 
stood, has  been  gone  through,  and  the  present  point  of  inquiry  and  further  tes- 
timony is  as  to  the  ground  of  misimderstanding  between  this  witness  and  some 
interlocutor  in  Boston,  and  we  object  to  its  being  heard. 

jMr.  Manager  Butler.  Which  he  explained  to  Mr.  Koppel  is  the  point. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  makes  no  difference. 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  Having  put  in  a  part  of  Mr.  Koppel's  conversation, 
whether  voluntary  or  not,  I  have  the  right  to  the  whole  of  it.  1  will  explain 
to  the  gentlemen  that  I  wisli  to  show  that  the  misunderstanding  was  not  that 
the  President  said  the  twenty-five  per  cent,  was  to  be  given,  but  one  of  his  friends. 
There   is  where   the  misunderstanding  arose.     Do  the  gentlemen  still  object? 

Mr.  Stanbery  and  Mr.  Evarts.  Of  course  we  object.  It  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  case. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  not  press  it  further.     That  is  all,  Mr.  Wood. 

Foster  Blodgbtt  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  Were  you  an  officer  of  the  United  States  at  any  time  ] 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.   Where? 

A.  la  Augusta,  Georgia. 

Q.  Holding  what  office? 

A.  Postmaster. 

Q.  When  did  you  go  into  the  exercise  of  the  duties  of  that  office  ? 

A.  I  was  appointed  on  the  25th  day  of  July,  1865. 

Q.  Have  you  your  commission  or  appointment  ? 

A.  I  have.  (Producing  it.)  I  took  charge  on  the  16th  day  of  September, 
1865. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  another  commission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  that  here  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     (Producing  it.) 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  tlie  counsel  for  the  respondent,  hnnding  them  the 
first  commission.)  Gentlemen,  here  is  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Blodgett  from  the 
President  in  the  recess  of  the  Senate.  (To  the  witness.)  Is  this  your  other 
commission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  were  confirmed  by  the  Senate  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  "To  have  a^id  to  hold  for  the  term  of  four  years  from 
the  day  of  the  date  hereof,  unless  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time 


376  IMFEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

being  shall  be  pleased   sooner  to  revoke,  to  determine  the  commission."     This 
Avas  on  the  27th  day  of  July,  1866,  issued  by  the  President. 

(The  commission  was  handed  to  the  counsel  for  the  President.) 

Q.   Were  you  suspended  from  office  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  suspension  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  not  a  copy  of  it.  It  is  down  with  the  Committee  on  Post 
Offices. 

Q.  Among  the  records  of  the  Senate  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  On  the  3d  of  January,  186S. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  to  see  whether  your  suspension  and  the  reasons 
therefor  have  been  sent  to  the  Senate  ? 

A.  It  has  been  reported  to  me  by  the  chairman  of  the  Post  Office  Committee 
that  it  had  not  been  sent  in. 

Q.  Can  you  learn  that  it  has  been  sent  in  ? 

A.  I  have  learned  that  it  has  not  been  sent  in, 

Jlr.  Manager  Butlek.  I  suppose  senators  can  make  this  certain  from  their 
own  records,  to  which  we  have  not  access. 

Mr.  Sta.xberv.  Of  course,  we  know  all  about  it. 

Mr.  ^Manager  Butler.  I  supposed,  sir,  you  did  know  all  about  it.  (To  wit- 
ness.) Has  any  action  been  taken  on  your  suspension,  except  simply  that  you 
were  suspended  1 

A.  None  that  I  know  of. 

No  cross-examination. 

Mr.  JManager  BiTLEU.  I  ask  counsel  for  the  President  if  they  desire  to  be 
served  with  notice  to  produce  the  original  of  that  letter?  (Handing  to  the  coun- 
sel a  copy  of  a  letter.) 

Mr.  Stanbery,  (having  examined  the  papers.)  I  see  no  objection  to  that. 
We  do  not  want  to  put  you  to  the  necessity  of  mere  formal  proof,     liead  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler  read  as  follows  : 

War  Dkpartmknt,  Adjutant  Gknerau's  Office, 

li'a!<liin^ton,  Fibruary  2\,  J898. 
Sir:  I  liave  tlie  liouor  to  report  that  I  have  delivered  the  conimunicatiou  addres.sed  by 
you  to  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  removiuf^  him  from  oflice  of  Secretary  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment, and  also  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  thi.s  date  aiuhorizing  and  empow- 
ering iiu!  to  act  a,s  Secretary  of  War  ud  interim.  I  accept  this  appointment  with  gratitude 
for  tlie  confidence  reposed  in  me,  and  will  endeavor  to  di.-jcharge  tiie  duties  to  the  best  of  my 
ability. 

I  liave  the  houor  to  be,  your  obedient  .servant, 

L.  THOMAS,  Adjutant  General. 
Hi.s  Excellency  Andrew  Johnson, 

President  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  instructed,  Mr.  President,  by  the  managers,  to 
give  notice  that  we  will  ask  of  the  Senate  to  allow  to  be  put  in  this  case  proper 
certificates  from  the  records  of  the  Senate  to  show  that  no  report  of  the  reason.'^ 
for  the  suspension  of  Mr.  Blodgett  has  ever  been  sent  to  the  Senate,  in  conformity 
with  the  law. 

The  Cmikf  Justice.  Those  can  be  put  in  at  any  time. 

]Mr.  ]\lan;iger  Bu'JLER.   Yes,  sir.     We  close  h(!rc. 

My.  StamjerN'.  1  will  ask  the  honorable  manager  under  what  article  this 
case  of  Mr.  Blodgett  comes  ? 

]Mr.  M.-uiager  Bi'TLER.  In  the  final  discussion  I  have  no  doubt  the  gentlemen 
who  close  the  case  will  answer  that  question  to  tlie  entire  satisfaction  of  the 
learned  gentleman. 

Mr.  STA.MiEiiV.  I  have  no  doubt  of  that  myself,  but  the  question  is  whether 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  377 

vre  are  to  be  put  to  the  trouble  of  answering  it.     That  is  the  point  I  want  to 
understand. 

The  Chief  Ju.stice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  must  know  that  when 
the  Senate  has  made  an  order  lor  furnishing  to  the  managers  the  certificates 
which  they  desire,  and  ihey  are  presented,  the  introduction  of  them  can  then 
be  objected  to.     At  present  there  is  no  question  before  the  court. 

Mr.  S'l'AMiKRY.  My  question  is  to  the  gentleman  under  what  article  this  case 
of  Mr.  Blodgc'tt  comes  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  managers  of  the  House  of  Il(  presentatives  state 
that  the  evidence  on  their  part,  with  the  exception  just  indicated,  is  closed. 
Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the  President,  you  will  proceed  with  the  defence. 

Mr.  Curtis,  of  counsel  for  the  respondent,  rose  and  said  :  Mr.  Chief  Justice, 
I  am  here  to  speak  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  sitting  in  its  judicial 
capacity  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  presided  over  by  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
L'nited  States,  for  the  trial  of  the  President  of  the  United  States.  This  state- 
ment sufficiently  characterizes  what  I  have  to  say.  Here  party  spirit,  political 
schemes,  foregone  conclusions,  outrageous  biases  can  have  no  fit  operation.  The 
Constitution  requires  that  here  should  be  a  "trial,"  and  as  in  that  trial  the  oath 
which  each  one  of  you  has  taken  is  to  adminster  "  impartial  justice  according  to 
the  Constitution  and  the  laws,"  the  only  appeal  which  I  can  make  in  behalf  of 
the  President  is  an  appeal  to  th  ■  conscience  and  the  reason  of  each  judge  who 
sits  before  me.  Upon  the  law  and  the  facts,  upon  the  judicial  merits  of  the 
case,  upon  the  duties  incumbent  on  that  high  officer  by  virtue  of  his  office,  and 
his  honest  endeavor  to  discharge  those  duties,  the  President  rests  his  defence. 
And  I  pray  each  one  of  you  to  listen  to  me  with  that  patience  which  belongs  to 
a  judge  for  his  own  sake,  which  I  cannot  expect  to  command  by  any  efforts  of 
mine,  while  I  open  to  you  what  that  defence  is. 

The  honorable  managers,  through  their  associate  who  has  addressed  you, 
(i\[r.  Butler,)  has  informed  jou  that  this  is  not  a  court,  and  that,  whatever  may 
be  the  character  of  this  body,  it  is  bound  by  no  law.  Upon  those  subjects  I 
shall  have  something  hereafter  to  say.  The  honorable  manager  did  not  tell 
you,  in  terms  at  least,  that  here  are  no  articles  before  you,  because  a  statement 
of  that  fact  would  be  in  substance  to  say  that  here  are  no  honorable  managers 
before  you  ;  inasmuch  as  the  only  authority  with  which  the  honorable  managers 
are  clothed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  is  an  authority  to  present  here  at 
your  bar  certain  articles,  and,  within  their  limits,  conduct  this  prosecution  ;  and, 
therefore,  I  shall  make  no  apology,  senators,  for  asking  your  close  attention  to 
these  articles,  one  after  the  other,  in  manner  and  form  as  they  are  here  presented, 
to  ascertain,  in  the  first  place,  what  are  the  substantial  allegations  in  each  of 
them,  what  is  the  legal  operation  and  effect  of  those  allegations,  and  what  proof 
is  necessary  to  be  adduced  in  order  to  sustain  them  ;  and  I  shall  begin  with 
the  first,  uot  merely  because  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  arranging  these 
articles,  have  placed  that  first  in  order,  but  because  the  subject-matter  of  that 
article  is  of  such  a  character  that  it  forms  the  foundation  of  the  first  eight 
articles  in  the  series,  and  enters  materially  into  two  of  the  remaining  three. 

What,  then,  is  the  substance  of  this  first  article  ?  What,  as  the  lawyers  say, 
are  the  gravamtniva  contained  in  it  ?  There  is  a  great  deal  of  verbiage — I  do 
not  mean  by  that  unnecessary  verbiage — in  the  description  of  the  substantive 
matters  set  down  in  this  article.  Stripped  of  that  verbiage  it  amounts  exactly 
to  these  things  :  first,  that  the  order  set  out  in  the  article  for  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Stanton,  if  executed,  would  be  a  violation  of  the  tenure-ol-oflice  act ;  second, 
that  it  was  a  violation  of  the  tenure-of-offise  act ;  third,  that  it  was  an  inten- 
tional violation  of  the  tenure-of-office  act ;  fourth,  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States;  and  fifth,  was  by  the  President  intended  to 
be  so.  Or,  to  draw  all  this  into  T)ne  sentence  which  yet  may  be  intelligible  and 
clear  enough,  I  suppose  the  substance  of  this  first  article  is  that  the  order  for 


878  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  was,  and  was  intended  to  be,  a  violation  of  the  tenure- 
of-office  act,  and  was  intended  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Those  are  the  allegations  which  it  is  necessary  for  the  honorable  man- 
agers to  make  out  in  proof  to  support  that  article. 

Now,  there  is  a  question  involved  here  which  enters  deeply,  as  T  have  already 
intimated,  into  the  first  eight  articles  in  this  series,  and  materially  touches  two 
of  the  others ;  and  to  that  question  I  detdre  in  the  first  place  to  invite  tht!  atten- 
tion of  the  court.  That  question  is,  whether  Mr.  Stanton's  case  comes  under 
the  tenure-of- office  act.  If  it  does  not,  if  the  true  construction  and  effect  of  the 
tenure-of-office  act  when  applied  to  the  facts  of  his  case  excludes  it,  then  it  will 
be  found  by  honorable  senators  when  they  come  to  examine  this  and  the  other 
articles  that  a  mortal  wound  has  been  inflicted  upon  them  by  that  decision.  I 
must,  therefore,  ask  your  attention  to  the  construction  and  application  of  the 
first  section  of  the  tennre-of-office  act.  It  is,  as  senators  know,  but  dry  work  ; 
it  requires  close,  careful  attention  and  reflection;  no  doubt  it  will  receive  them. 
Allow  me,  in  the  first  place,  to  read  that  section : 

Tliat  every  person  holdiug  any  civil  office  to  which  he  has  been  appoiutcd  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  every  jierson  who  shall  hereafter  be  appointed  to 
any  such  ofhce,  and  shall  become  duly  qualified  to  act  therein,  is  and  shall  be  entitled  to  hold 
such  ofik-e  until  a  successor  shall  liave  been  in  a  like  manner  appointed  and  duly  qualiiied, 
except  as  herein  otherwise  provided. 

Then  comes  what  is  "  otherwise  provided  :" 

Provided,  That  the  Secretaries  of  State,  of  the  Treasury,  of  War,  of  the  Navy,  and  of  the 
Interior,  the  Postmaster  General,  and  the  Attorney  General,  shall  hold  their  offices  respect- 
ively for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President  by  whom  they  may  have  been  appointed,  and 
for  one  month  thereafter,  subject  to  removal  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Sen- 
ate, 

Here  is  a  section,  then,  the  bod}^  of  which  applies  to  all  civil  officers,  as  well 
to  those  then  in  office  as  to  those  who  should  thereafter  be  appointed.  The 
body  of  that  section  contains  a  declaration  that  every  such  officer  "  is,"  that  is. 
if  he  is  now  in  office,  "and  shall  be,"  tliat  is,  if  he  shall  hereafter  be  appointed 
to  office,  entitled  to  hold  until  a  successor  is  appointed  and  qualified  in  his  place. 
That  is  the  body  of  the  section.  But  out  of  this  body  of  the  section  it  is  expli- 
citly declared  that  there  is  to  be  excepted  a  particular  class  of  officers  '•  except 
as  herein  otherwise  provided."  There  is  to  be  excepted  out  of  this  general 
description  of  all  civil  offi^-ers  a  particular  class  of  officers  as  to  whom  something 
is  "  otherwi^^e  provided;"  that  is,  a  dift'erent  rule  is  to  be  annouiiccd   for  them. 

I'he  Senate  will  perceive  that  in  the  body  of  the  section  all  officers,  as  well 
tho.-^e  then  holding  office  as  those  thereafter  to  be  appointed,  are  included.  The 
language  is  : 

Every  person  hohlinp:  any  civil  office  to  wliicli  he  has  been  appointed,  *  *  aiid 
every   jicrson  who    shall  liereattcr  be  ai)p(iintcd,  *  *         »  jg    ^jjj    gi,all    be 

entitled,  &c. 

It  affects  the  present ;  it  sweeps  over  all  who  are  in  office  and  come  within 
the  body  of  the  section  ;  it  inchnh's  by  its  terms  as  well  all  those  now  in  office 
as  those  who  may  be  hereafter  appointed.  But  when  you  come  to  the  proviso 
the  first  noticeable  thing  is  that  this  language  is  changed  ;  it  is  not  that  "  every 
Secretary  who  now  is,  and  Inn-eafter  may  br,  in  office  shall  be  entitled  to  hold 
that  office"  by  a  certain  rule  which  is  here  prescribed;  but  the  proviso,  while 
it  fixes  a  rule  for  tiie  future  only,  makes  no  declaration  of  th(>  ])resent  right  of 
one  of  this  class  of  officers,  and  the  ([uestion  whether  any  particidar  Secretary 
comes  within  that  rule  dejiends  on  another  cjneslion,  whether  his  case  comes 
within  the  description  contained  in  the  proviso.  'JMiere  is  no  language  which 
expressly  brings  him  within  the  proviso  ;  there  is  no  ex])ress  declaration,  as  in 
the  body  of  the  section,  that  "  he  is,  and   hereafter  shall  be,  entitled  "  merely 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  379 

because  he  holds  the  office  of  Secretary  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  tlie  law- 
There  is  nothing  to  bring  him  within  the  proviso,  I  repeat,  unless  the  descrip- 
tion wjiich  the  proviso  contains  applies  to  and  includes  his  case.  Now,  let  us 
see  if  it  does  : 

That  the  Secretaries  of  State,  &c.,  shall  hold  their  offices  respectively  for  and  during  the 
term  of  the  President  by  whom  they  may  have  been  appointed. 

The  first  inquiry  which  arises  on  this  language  is  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
words  "for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President."  Mr.  Stanton,  as  appears  by 
the  commission  which  has  been  put  into  the  case  by  the  honorable  managers, 
was  appointed  in  January,  1862,  during  the  first  term  of  President  Lincoln. 
Are  these  Avords  "  during  the  term  of  the  President,"  applicable  to  Mr.  Stanton's 
case  1  That  depends  upon  whether  an  expounder  of  this  law  judicially,  who 
finds  set  down  in  it  as  a  part  of  the  descriptive  words  "  during  the  term  of  the 
President,"  has  any  right  to  add  "and  any  other  term  for  which  he  may  after- 
ward be  elected."  By  what  authority  short  of  legislative  power  can  those 
words  be  put  into  the  statute  so  that  "during  the  term  of  the  President"  shall 
be  held  to  mean  "  and  any  other  term  or  terms  for  which  the  President  may  be 
elected?  "  I  respectfully  submit  no  such  judicial  interpretation  can  be  put  ou 
the  words. 

Then,  if  you  please,  take  the  next  step.  "During  the  term  of  the  President 
by  whom  he  was  appointed."  At  the  time  when  this  order  was  issued  for  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  was  he  holding  "during  the  term  of  tlie  President  by 
whom  he  was  appointed  ?  "  The  honorable  managers  say  yes,  because,  as  they 
say,  Mr.  Johnson  is  merely  serving  out  the  residue  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  term.  But 
is  that  so  under  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  tlie  United  States  1  I  pray 
you  to  allow  me  to  read  two  clauses  which  are  applicable  to  this  qnesiioti  The 
first  is  the  first  section  of  the  second  article  : 

The  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  a  President  of  the  United  States  of  America.  He 
shall  hold  his  office  duriiif^  the  term  of  your  years,  and,  together  with  the  Vice-President, 
chosen  for  the  same  term,  be  elected  as  follows. 

There  is  a  declaration  that  the  President  and  the  Vice-President  is  each 
respectively  to  hold  his  office  for  the  term  of  four  years;  but  that  does  not  stand 
alone;  here  is  its  qualification: 

In  case  of  the  removal  of  the  President  from  office,  or  of  his  death,  resignation,  or  inability 
to  discharge  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  said  office,  the  same  shall  devolve  on  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent. 

So  that,  although  the  Pi-esident,  like  the  Vice-President,  is  elected  for  a  term 
of  four  years,  and  each  is  elected  for  the  same  term,  the  President  is  not  to  hold 
his  office  absolutely  during  four  years.  The  limit  of  four  years  is  not  an  abso- 
lute limit.  Death  is  a  limit.  A  "  conditional  limitation,"  as  the  lawyers  call  it, 
is  imposed  on  his  tenure  of  ofiice.  And  when,  according  to  this  second  passage 
which  I  have  read,  the  President  dies,  his  term  of  four  years  for  which  he  was 
elected,  and  during  which  he  was  to  hold,  provided  he  should  so  long  live,  ter- 
minates, and  the  otfice  devolves  on  the  Vice-President.  For  what  period  of  time  ? 
For  the  remainder  of  the  term  for  which  the  Vice-President  was  elected.  And 
there  is  no  more  propriety,  luider  these  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  in  calling  the  time  during  which  Mr.  Johnson  hohls  the  office  of 
President  after  it  was  devolved  upon  him  a  part  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  term,  than 
there  would  be  propriety  in  saying  that  one  sovereign  who  succeeded  to  another 
sovereign  by  death  holds  a  part  of  his  predecessor's  term.  The  term  assigned 
to  Mr.  Lincoln  by  the  Constitution  was  conditionally  assigned  to  him.  It  was 
to  last  four  j'ears,  if  not  sooner  ended  ;  but  if  sooner  ended  by  his  death,  then 
the  office  Avas  devolved  on  the  Vice-President,  and  the  term  of  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent to  hold  the  office  then  began. 

I  submit,  then,  that  upon  this  language  of  the  act   it  is   apparent   that   Mr. 


380  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Stanton's  cai^e  cannot  be  considered  as  witliin  it.  This  law,  however,  as  sena- 
tors very  well  know,  had  a  purpose;  there  was  a  practical  object  in  the  view  of 
Congress  ;  and,  however  clear  it  might  seem  that  the  language  of  the  law  when 
applied  to  Mr.  Stanton's  case  would  exclude  that  case,  however  clear  that  might 
seem  on  the  mere  words  of  the  law,  if  the  purpose  of  the  law  could  be  discerned, 
and  that  purpose  plainly  required  a  different  interpretation,  that  different  inter- 
pretation should  be  given.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  purpose  in  view  was 
one  requiring  that  interpretation  to  which  I  have  been  drawing  your  attention, 
then  it  greatly  strengthens  the  argument ;  because  not  only  the  language  of  the 
act  itself,  but  the  practical  object  which  the  legislature  had  in  view  in  using  that 
language,  demands  that  interpretation. 

Now,  there  can  be  no  dispute  concerning  what  that  purpose  was,  as  I  suppose. 
Here  is  a  peculiar  class  of  officers  singled  out  from  all'othc^rs  and  brought  within 
this  provision.  Why  is  this  1  It  is  because  the  Constitution  has  provided  that 
these  principal  officers  in  the  several  executive  departments  may  be  called  upon 
by  the  President  for  advice  "  respecting" — for  that  is  the  language  of  the  Con- 
stitution— "their  several  duties" — not,  as  I  read  the  Constitution,  that  he  may 
call  upon  the  S('cretary  of  War  for  advice  concerning  questions  arising  in  the 
Department  of  W^ar.  He  may  call  upon  him  for  advice  concerning  question.-i 
which  are  a  part  of  the  duty  of  the  President,  as  well  as  questions  whicli  belong 
only  to  the  Department  of  War.  Allow  me  to  read  that  clause  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  see  if  this  be  not  its  true  interpretation.  The  language  of  the  Consti- 
tution is  that — 

He  [tlie  President]  may  require  the  opinion  in  writiiipr  of  tlie  principal  officer  in  each  of 
the  executive  departmeuts  upon  any  subject  relating  to  the  duties  of  their  respective  ofltices. 

As  I  read  it,  relating  to  the  duties  of  the  offices  of  these  principal  officers, 
or  relating  to  the  duties  of  the  President  himself.  At  all  events,  such  was  the 
practical  interpretation  put  upon  the  Constitution  from  the  beginning  of  the 
government;  and  every  gentleman  who  listens  to  me  who  is  familiar,  as  you  all 
are,  with  the  political  history  of  the  country,  knows  that  from  an  early  period 
of  the  administration  of  General  Washington,  his  Secretaries  were  called  upon 
for  advice  concerning  matters  not  within  their  respective  departments,  and  so 
the  practice  has  continued  from  that  time  to  this.  This  is  one  thing  which  dis^- 
tinguishes  this  class  of  officers  from  any  other  embraced  within  the  body  of  the 
law. 

But  there  is  another.  The  Constitution  undoubtedly  contemplated  that  there 
should  be  executive  departments  created,  the  heads  of  which  were  to  assist  the 
President  in  the  administration  of  the  laws  as  well  as  by  their  advice.  They 
were  to  be  the  hands  and  the  voice  of  the  President ;  and  accordingly  that  has 
been  so  practiced  from  the  beginning,  and  the  legislation  of  Congress  has  been 
framed  on  this  assumption  in  the  organization  of  the  departments,  and  emphat- 
ically in  the  act  which  constituted  the  Department  of  War,  That  provides,  as 
senators  well  remember,  in  so  many  words,  that  the  Secretary  of  War  is  to  dis- 
charge such  duties  of  a  general  descriptiou  there  given  as  shall  be  assigned  to 
him  by  the  President,  and  that  he  is  to  perform  them  under  the  President's 
instructions  and  directions. 

Let  me  repeat,  that  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  other  Secretaries,  the  Post- 
master General,  and  the  Attf)rney  General,  are  deemed  to  be  the  assistants  of 
the  President  in  the  performance  of  his  great  duty  to  take  care  that  the  laws 
are  faithfully  executed  ;  that  they  sptjak  for  and  act  for  him.  Now,  do  not  these 
two  views  furnish  the  reisons  why  this  cla-><s  of  officers  was  excepted  out  of 
the  law  ?  They  were  to  be  the  advisers  of  the  President ;  they  were  to  be  the 
immediate  confidential  assistants  of  the  Presideut,  for  whom  he  was  to  be  respon- 
sible, but  in  whom  he  was  expected  to  repose  a  great  amount  of  trust  and  con- 
fideuce;  and  therefore  it  was  that  this  act  has  connected  the  tenure  of  office  of 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  381 

these  Secretaries  to  which  it  applies  with  the  President  by  whom  they  Avere 
appointed.  It  says,  in  the  description  which  the  act  gives  of  the  future  tenure 
of  olhce  of  Secretaries,  that  a  controlling^  regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  ftict  that  thi^ 
Secretary  whose  tenure  is  to  be  regulated  was  appointed  by  some  particular 
President  ;■  and  during  the  term  of  that  President  he  shall  continue  to  hold  his 
office  ;  but  as  for  Secretaries  who  an;  in  office,  not  appointed  )jy  the  President, 
we  have  nothing  to  say  ;  we  leave  them  as  they  heretofore  have  been.  I  submit 
to  senators  that  this  is  the  natural,  and,  having  regard  to  the  character  of  tliese 
officers,  the  necessary  conclusion,  that  the  tenure  of  the  office  of  a  Secretary  here 
described  is  a  tenure  during  the  terra  of  service  of  the  President  by  whom  he 
was  appointed;  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  Congress  to  compel  a  President 
of  the  United  States  to  continue  in  office  a  Secretary  not  appointed  by  himself 

We  have,  however,  fortunately,  not  only  the  means  of  interpreting  this  law 
which  I  have  alluded  to,  namely,  the  language  of  the  act,  the  evident  character 
and  purpose  of  the  act,  but  we  have  decisive  evidence  of  what  was  intended 
and  understood  to  be  the  meaning  and  effect  of  this  law  in  each  branch  of  Con- 
gress at  the  time  when  it  was  passed.  In  order  to  make  this  more  apparent, 
and  its  just  weight  more  evident,  allow  me  to  state  what  is  very  familiar,  no 
donbt,  to  senators,  but  which  I  wish  to  recall  to  their  minds,  the  history  of  this 
proviso,  this  exception. 

The  bill,  as  senators  will  recollect,  originally  excluded  these  officers  altogether. 
It  made  no  attempt — indeed,  it  rejected  all  attempts  to  prescribe  a  tenure  of 
office  for  them  as  inappropriate  to  the  necessities  of  the  government.  So  the 
bill  went  to  the  House  of  Representatives.  It  was  there  amended  by  putting 
the  Secretaries  on  the  same  fooling  as  all  other  civil  officers  appointed  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and,  thus  amended,  came  back  to  this  body. 
This  body  disagreed  to  the  amendment.  Thereupon  a  committee  of  conference 
was  appointed,  and  that  committee,  on  the  part  of  the  House,  had  for  its  chair- 
man Hon.  Mr.  Scheuck,  of  Ohio,  and  on  the  part  of  this  body  Hon,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, of  Oregon,  and  Hon.  Mr.  Sherman,  of  Ohio.  The  committee  of  confer- 
ence came  to  an  agreement  to  alter  the  bill  by  striking  these  Secretaries  out  of 
the  body  of  the  bill  and  inserting  them  in  the  proviso  containing  the  matter 
now  under  consideration.  Of  course  when  this  report  was  made  to  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  to  this  body,  it  was  incumbent  on  the  committee  charged 
with  looking  after  its  intentions  and  estimates  of  the  public  necessities  in  refer- 
ence to  that  conference — it  was  expected  that  they  would  explain  what  had 
been  agreed  to,  with  a  view  that  the  body  itself,  thus  understanding  what  had 
been  agreed  to  be  done,  could  proceed  to  act  intelligently  on  the  matter. 

Now,  I  wish  to  read  to  the  Senate  the  explanation  given  by  Hon.  Mr.  Scheuck, 
the  chairman  of  this  conference  on  the  part  of  the  House,  when  he  made  his 
report  to  the  House  concerning  this  proviso.  After  the  i-eading  of  the  report, 
Mr.  Schenck  said  : 

I  propose  to  demand  tLe  previous  question  upon  the  question  of  agreeing  to  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  coul'ereiice.  But  before  doinf^  so,  I  will  explain  to  the  House  the  comlitiou 
of  the  bill,  and  the  decision  of  the  conference  committee  upon  it.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
by  the  bill  as  it  passed  the  Senate  it  was  provided  that  the  concurrence  of  tlie  Senate  should 
be  required  in  all  removals  from  office,  except  in  tlie  case  of  the  heads  of  departments.  The 
House  amended  the  bill  of  the  Senate  so  as  to  extend  this  requirement  to  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments as  well  as  to  other  officers. 

The  committee  of  conference  have  agreed  that  the  Senate  shall  accept  the  amendment  of  the 
House.  But,  inasmuch  as  this  would  compel  the  President  to  keep  around  him  heads  of 
departments  uutil  the  end  of  his  term,  who  would  hold  over  to  another  term,  a  compromise 
was  made  by  which  a  further  amendment  is  added  to  this  portion  of  the  bill,  so  that  the  term 
of  otSce  of  the  heads  of  departments  shall  expire  with  the  term  of  the  President  who  appointed 
them,  allowinfj  those  heads  of  departments  one  month  longer,  in  which,  in  case  of  death  or 
otherwise,  other  heads  of  departments  can  be  named.  This  is  the  whole  etTect  of  the  propo- 
sition reported  by  the  committee  of  conference ;  it  is,  in  fact,  an  acceptance  by  the  Senate 
of  the  position  taken  by  the  House.  (Congressional  Globe,  thirty-ninth  Congress,  second 
session,  p.  1340.) 


382  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Tlion  a  question  was  ai^ked,  Avhetlier  it  wouM  be  necessary  that  the  Senate 
should  concur  in  all  other  appointments,  &;c. ;  iu  reply  to  which  Mr.  Scheiick. 
said  : 

That  is  the  case.     But  their  terms  of  ofifice — 

That  is,  the  Secretaries'  terms  of  office — 

are  limited,  as  they  are  not  now  limited  bj'  law,  so  tliat  they  expire  with  the  term  of  service 
of  the  President  who  appoints  them,  and  one  mouth  after,  m  case  of  deatli  or  other  accident, 
until  others  can  be  substituted  for  them  by  the  incoming  President.     (Ibid.) 

Allow  me  to  repeat  that  sentence  : 

They  e.xpiro  with  the  term  of  service  of  the  President  who  appoints  them,  and  one  month 
aft(!r,  in  case  of  death  or  other  accident. 

In  this  body,  on  the  report  being  made,  the  chairman,  Hon.  Mr.  Williams, 
made  an  explanation.  That  explanation  was,  in  substance,  the  same  as  that 
made  by  Mr.  Schenck  in  the  House,  and  thereupon  a  considerable  debate 
sprang  up,  which  was  not  the  case  in  the  House,  for  this  explanation  of  Mr. 
Schenck  was  accepted  by  the  Plouse  as  correct,  and  unquestionably  was  .acted 
upon  by  the  House  as  giving  the  true  sense,  meaning,  and  effect  of  this  bill. 
Ill  this  body,  as  I  have  said,  a  considerable  debate  sprang  up.  It  would  take 
too  much  of  your  time  and  too  much  of  my  strength  to  undertake  to  read  this 
debate,  and  there  is  not  a  great  deal  of  it  which  I  can  select  so  as  to  present  it 
fairly  and  intelligibly  without  reading  the  accompanying  parts  ;  but  I  think 
the  whole  of  it  may  fairly  be  summed  up  in  this  statement :  that  it  was  charged 
by  one  of  the  honorable  senators  from  Wisconsin  that  it  was  the  intention  of 
those  who  favored  this  bill  to  keep  in  office  i\[i-.  Stint'on  and  certain  other  Sec- 
retaries. That  v/as  directly  met  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio,  one  of 
the  members  of  the  committee  of  conference,  by  this  statement  : 

I  do  not  under.stand  the  logic  of  the  senator  from  Wisconsin.  He  first  attributes  a  pur- 
pose to  the  eommittec  of  conference  which  I  saj'  is  not  true.  I  say  that  the  Senate  have  not 
leirislated  with  a  view  to  any  persons  or  any  President,  and  tlierefore  lie  coinmences  by 
asserting  what  is  not  true.  We  do  not  legislate  iu  order  to  keep  iu  the  Secretary  of  War, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  or  the  Secretary  of  State. — Ibid.,  p.  15J6. 

Then  a  conversation  arose  between  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio  and 
another  honorable  senator,  and  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio  continued  thus: 

That  the  Senate  had  no  such  purpose  is  shown  by  its  vote  twice  to  make  this  exception. 
That  this  provision  does  not  apply  to  the  j)reseut  case  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  its  languagfe 
is  so  framed  as  not  to  apply  to  the  [jresent  President.  The  senator  shows  that  hiuiself,  and 
argues  truly  tliat  it  would  not  prevent  the  present  I'resideut  from  removing  the  Secretary  of 
War,  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  the  Secietary  of  State.  And  if  I  supposes!  that  either 
of  these  gentlemen  was  so  wanting  iu  nianhoud,  in  honor,  as  to  hold  his  place  after  the 
politest  intimation  by  the  President  of  tlie  United  States  that  his  services  were  no  longer 
needed,  I  certainly,  as  a  senator,  would  consent  to  his  removal  at  any  time,  and  so  would 
we  all. — Ibid.,  p.  loJtJ. 

I  read  this,  senators,  not  as  expressing  the  opinion  of  an  individual  senator 
concerning  the  meaning  of  a  law  which  was  under  discussion  and  was  about  to 
pass  into  legislation.  1  read  it  as  the  report;  for  it  is  that  in  effect — the  expla- 
nation, rather,  of  the  report  of  the  committee  of  conference  appointed  by  this 
body  to  see  whether  this  body  could  agi-ee  with  the  House  of  Representatives 
in  tlu;  frame  of  this  bill,  which  committee  came  back  here  with  a  report  that  a 
certain  alteration  had  been  made  and  agreed  upon  by  the  committee  of  confer- 
ence, and  that  its  cllect  v.'as  what  is  above  stated.  And  now  I  ask  the  Senate, 
looking  at  the  language  of  this  law,  looking  at  its  purj)ose,  looking  at  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  was  passed,  the  meaning  thus  attached  to  it  b}^  each 
of  the  bodies  which  consented  to  it,  whether  it  is  j)ossiblc  to  hold  that  Mr. 
Stanton's  case  is  within  the  scope  of  that  tenure-of-office  act?  I  submit  it  is 
not  possible. 

I  now  return  to  the  allegations  in  this  first  article;  and  the  first  allegation,  as 
senators  will  remember,  is  that  the  issuing  of  the  order  which  is  set  out  in  the 
article  was  a  violation  of  the  teuure-of-office  act.     It  is  perfectly  clear  that  is 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  383 

not  true.  The  temire-of-officc  act  in  the  sixlli  section  enacts  "  that  every  removal, 
appointment,  or  employment,  made,  had,  or  exercised,  contrary  to  the  provisions 
of  tliis  act,"  &c.,  shall  be  deemed  a  high  misdemeanor.  "Every  removal  con- 
trary to  the  provisions  of  this  act."  In  the  iirst  place  no  removal  has  taken 
place.  They  set  out  an  order.  If  Mr.  Stanton  had  obeyed  that  order  there 
would  have  been  a  removal ;  but,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Stanton  disobeyed  that  order, 
there  was  no  removal.  So  it  is  quite  clear  that,  looking  to  this  sixth  section  of 
the  act,  they  have  made  out  no  case  of  a  removal  within  its  terms;  and,  there- 
fore, no  case  of  violation  of  the  act  by  a  removal.  But  it  must  not  only  be  a 
removal,  it  must  be  "contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act;"  and,  therefore,  if 
yo\i  could  hold  the  order  to  be  in  effect  a  removal,  unless  Mr.  Stanton's  case  was 
within  this  act,  unless  this  act  gave  Mr.  Stanton  a  tenure  of  ofiice  and  protected 
it,  of  course  the  removal,  even  if  it  had  been  actual  instead  of  attempted  merely, 
would  not  have  been  "contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  act,"  for  the  act  had 
nothing  to. do  with  it. 

But  this  article,  as  senators  will  perceive  on  looking  at  it,  does  not  allege 
simply  that  the  order  for  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  was  a  violation  of  the 
tenure-of-office  act.  The  honorable  House  of  Representatives  have  not,  by  this 
article,  attempted  to  erect  a  mistake  into  a  crime.  I  have  been  arguing  to  you 
at  considerable  length,  no  doubt  trying  your  patience  thereby,  the  construction  ■ 
of  that  tenure-of-otKce  law.  I  have  a  clear  idea  of  what  its  construction  ought 
to  be.  Senators,  more  or  less  of  them  who  have  listened  to  me,  may  have  a  dif- 
ferent view  of  its  construction,  but  I  think  they  will  in  all  candor  admit  that 
there  is  a  question  of  construction  ;  there  is  a  question  of  what  the  meaning  of 
this  law  was;  a  question  whether  it  was  applicable  to  Mr.  Stanton's  case;  a  very 
honest  and  solid  question  which  any  man  could  entertain,  and  therefore  I  repeat 
it  is  important  to  observe  that  the  honorable  House  of  Repreeentatives  have  not, 
by  this  article,  endeavored  to  charge  the  President  with  a  high  misdemeanor 
because  he  had  been  honestly  mistaken  in  construing  that  law.  They  go  further 
and  take  the  necessary  step.  They  charge  him  with  intentionally  misconstruing 
it ;  they  say,  "  Which  order  was  unlawfully  issued  with  intention  then  and  there 
to  violate  said  act."  So  that,  in  order  to  maintain  the  substance  of  this  article, 
without  which  it  was  not  designed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  to  stand 
and  cannot  stand,  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  show  that  the  President  wilfully 
misconstrued  this  law;  that  having  reason  to  believe,  and  actually  believing, 
after  the  use  of  due  inquiry,  that  Mr.  Stanton's  case  was  within  the  law,  he  acted 
as  if  it  was  not  within  the  law.     That  is  the  substance  of  the  charge. 

What  of  the  proof  in  support  of  that  allegation  offered  by  the  honorable 
managers?  Senators  must  undoubtedly  be  fjimili;ir  with  the  fact  that  the  office 
of  President  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  many  other  executive  offices,  and 
to  some  extent  legislative  offices,  call  upon  those  who  hold  them  for  the  exer- 
cise of  judgment  and  skill  in  the  construction  and  application  of  laws.  It  is 
true  that  the  strictly  judicial  power  of  the  country,  technically  speaking,  is 
vested  in  the  Supreme  Court  and  such  inferior  courts  as  Congress  from  time  to 
time  have  established  or  may  establish.  But  there  is  a  great  mass  of  work  to 
be  performed  by  executive  officers  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  which  is  of 
a  judicial  character.  Take,  for  instance,  all  that  is  done  in  the  auditing  of 
accounts;  that  is  judicial  whether  it  be  done  by  an  auditor  or  a  comptroller,  or 
Avhether  it  be  done  by  a  chancellor;  and  the  work  has  the  same  character 
whether  done  by  one  or  by  the  other.  They  must  construe  and  apply  the  laws; 
they  must  investigate  and  ascertain  facts  ;  they  must  come  to  some  results  com- 
pounded of  the  law  and  of  the  facts. 

Now,  this  class  of  duties  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  to  perform. 
A  case  is  brought  before  him,  which,  in  his  judgment,  calls  for  action ;  his  first 
inquiry  must  be.  What  is  the  law  on  the  subject  1  He  encounters,  among  other 
things,  this  tenure-of-office  law  in  the  course  of  his  inquiry.     His  first  duty  is 


384  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

to  construe  tliat  law;  to  see  whether  it  applies  to  the  case  ;  to  use,  of  course,  in 
doing  so,  all  those  means  and  appliances  which  the  Constitution  and  the  laws 
of  the  country  have  put  into  his  hands  to  enable  him  to  come  to  a  correct  deci- 
sion.   But  after  all  he  must  decide  in  order  either  to  act  or  to  refrain  from  action. 

That  process  the  President  in  this  case  was  obliged  to  go  through,  and  did  go 
through  ;  and  he  came  to  the  conchision  that  the  case  of  Mr.  Stanton  was  not 
within  this  law.  He  came  to  that  conclusion,  not  merely  by  an  examination  of 
this  lav/  himself,  but  by  resorting  to  the  advice  which  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  country  enable  him  to  call  for  to  assist  him  in  coming  to  a  correct  conclu- 
sion. Having  done  so,  are  the  Senate  prepared  to  say  that  the  conclusion  he 
reached  must  have  been  a  wilful  misconstruction — so  wilful,  so  wrong,  that  it 
can  justly  and  properly,  and  for  the  purpose  of  this  prosecution,  effectively  be 
termed  a  high  misdemeanor  ?  How  does  the  law  read  ?  What  are  its  puruoses 
and  objects  t  How  was  it  understood  here  at  the  time  when  it  was  passed  ? 
How  is  it  possible  for  this  body  to  convict  the  President  of  the  United  States 
of  a  high  misdemeanor  for  construing  a  law  as  those  who  made  it  construed  it 
at  the  time  when  it  was  made  ? 

I  submit  to  the  Senate  that  thus  far  no  gi-eat  advance  has  been  made  toward 
the  conclusion  either  that  the  allegation  in  this  article  that  this  order  was  a  vio- 
lation of  the  tenure-of-ofhce  act  is  true,  or  that  there  was  an  intent  on  the  part 
of  the  President  thus  to  violate  it.  And  although  we  have  ndt  yet  gone  over  all 
the  allegations  in  this  article,  we  have  met  its  "  head  and  front,"  and  what 
remains  will  be  found  to  be  nothing  but  incidental  and  circumstantial,  and  not 
the  principal  subject.  K  Mr.  Stanton  was  not  within  this  act,  if  he  held  the 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  at  the  pleasure  of  President  John- 
sou  as  he  held  it  at  the  pleasure  of  President  Lincoln,  if  he  was  bound  by  law 
to  obey  that  order  which  was  given  to  him,  and  quit  the  place  instead  of  being 
sustained  by  law  in  resisting  that  order,  1  think  the  honorable  managers  will 
find  it  extremely  difficult  to  construct  out  of  the  broken  fragments  of  this  article 
anything  which  will  amount  to  a  high  misdemeanor.  What  are  they  ?  They 
are,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  President  did  violate,  and  intended  to  violate,  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  by  giving  this  order.  Why?  They  say,  as  1 
understand  it,  because  the  order  of  removal  was  made  daring  the  session  of  the 
Senate  ;  that  for  that  reason  the  order  was  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

I  desire  to  be  understood  on  this  subject.  If  I  can  make  my  own  ideas  of 
it  plain,  1  think  nothing  is  left  of  this  allegation.  In  the  first  place,  the  case, 
as  senators  will  observe,  which  is  now  under  consideration,  is  the  case  of  a 
Secretary  of  War  holding  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  by  the  terms  of 
his  commission  ;  holding  under  the  act  of  1789,  which  created  that  department, 
which,  although  it  does  not  affect  to  confer  on  the  President  the  power  to  remove 
the  Secretary,  does  clearly  imply  that  he  has  that  power  by  making  a  provision 
for  what  shall  happen  in  case  he  exercises  it.  That  is  the  case  which  is  under 
consideration,  and  the  question  is  this  :  Whether  under  the  law  of  17S0  and  the 
tenure  of  oilice  created  by  that  law,  designedly  created  by  that  law,  after  tlie  great 
debate  c)f  17S9,  and  whether  under  a  commission  which  conforms  to  it,  hokling 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  Picsident,  the  President  could  remove  such  a  Secretary 
during  the  session  of  the  Senate.  AViiy  not  ?  Certainly  there  is  nothing  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  prohibit  it.  The  Constitution  has  made 
two  distinct  ])rovisions  for  filling  oiKces.  One  is  by  nomination  to  the  Senate 
and  confirmation  by  them  and  a  connnission  by  the  President  upini  that  conlirma- 
tion  ;  the  other  is  by  commissioning  an  oilicer  when  a  vacancy  happens  during 
the  recess  of  the  Senate.  But  the  question  now  before  you  is  not  a  question 
how  vacancies  shall  be  filled;  that  the  Constitution  has  thus  provided  for;  it  is 
a  question  how  they  may  be  created,  and  when  they  may  be  created — a  totally 
distinct  question. 


IMPEACHxMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  385 

Whatever  may  be  tlinnght  of  the  sounclne?s  of  the  concluBiou  arrivetl  at  npon 
the  great  debate  in  17S9  concerning  the  tenure  of  office,  or  concerning  the  power 
of  removal  from  office,  no  one,  I  suppose,  will  (juestiou  that  a  conclusion  was 
arrived  at ;  and  that  conclusion  was  that  the  Constitution  had  lodged  with  the 
President  the  power  of  removal  from  office  independently  of  the  Senate.  This 
may  be  a  decision  proper  to  be  reversed  ;  it  may  have  been  now  reversed  ;  of 
that  I  say  nothing  at  present ;  but  that  it  was  made,  and  that  the  legislation  of 
Congress  of  17S9  and  so  on  down  during  the  whole  period  of  legislation  to  1867 
proceeded  upon  the  assum})tion,  express  or  implied,  that  that  decision  had  been 
made,  nobody  who  understands  the  history  of  the  legislation  of  the  country  will 
deny. 

Consider,  if  you  please,  what  this  decision  was.  It  was  that  the  Constitution 
had  lodged  this  power  in  the  President ;  that  he  alone  was  to  exercise  it ;  that 
the  Senate  bild  not*  and  could  not  have  any  control  whatever  over  it.  If  that 
be  so,  of  what  materiality  is  it  whether  the  Senate  is  in  session  or  not  ?  If  the 
Senate  is  not  in  session,  and  the  President  has  this  power,  a  vacancy  is  created, 
and  the  Constitution  has  made  provision  for  filliug  that  vacancy  by  commission 
until  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  the  Senate.  If  the  Senate  is  in  session, 
then  the  Constitution  has  made  provision  for  tilling  a  vacancy  which  is  created 
by  a  nomination  to  the  Senate ;  and  the  laws  of  the  country,  as  I  am  presently 
going  to  show  you  somewhat  in  detail,  have  made  provisions  for  filling  it  ad 
interim  without  any  nomination,  if  the  President  is  not  prepared  to  make  a 
nomination  at  the  moment  when  he  finds  the  public  service  requires  the  removal 
of  an  officer.  So  that  if  this  be  a  case  within  the  scope  of  the  decision  made 
by  Congress  in  1789,  and  within  the  scope  of  the  legislation  which  followed 
upon  that  decision,  it  is  a  case  wher^,  either  by  force  of  the  Constitution  the 
President  had  the  power  of  removal  without  consulting  the  Senate,  or  else  the 
legislation  of  Congress  had  given  it  to  him ;  and  either  way  neither  the  Con- 
stitution nor  the  legislation  of  Congress  had  made  it  incumbent  on  him  to  con- 
sult the  Senate  on  the  subject. 

I  submit,  then,  that  if  you  look  at  this  matter  of  Mr.  Stanton's  removal  just 
as  it  stands  on  the  decision  in  1789,  or  on  the  legislation  of  Congress  following 
upon  that  decision,  and  in  accordance  with  which  are  the  terms  of  the  commis- 
sion under  which  Mr.  Stanton  held  office,  you  must  come  to  the  conclusion, 
without  any  further  evidence  on  the  subject,  that  the  Senate  had  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  either  to  advise  for  it  or  to  advise 
against  it ;  that  it  came  either  under  the  constitutional  power  of  the  Presi- 
dent as  it  had  been  interpreted  in  1789,  or  it  came  under  the  grant  made 
by  the  legislature  to  the  President  in  regard  to  all  those  secretaries  not  included 
within  the  tenure-of-office  bill.  This,  however,  does  not  rest  simply  upon  this 
application  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  legislation  of  Congress.  There  has 
been,  and  we  shall  bring  it  before  you,  a  practice  by  the  government,  going  back 
to  a  very  early  day,  and  coming  down  to  a  recent  period,  for  the  President  to 
make  removals  from  office  when  the  case  called  for  them,  without  regard  to  the 
fact  whether  the  Senate  was  in  session  or  not.  The  instances,  of  course,  would 
not  be  numerous.  If  the  Senate  was  in  session  the  President  would  send  a 
nomination  to  the  Senate  saying,  "A  B,  in  place  of  C  D,-  removed ;"  but  then 
there  were  occasions,  not  frequent,  I  agree,  but  there  were  occasions,  as  you  will 
see  might  naturally  happen,  when  the  President,  perhaps,  had  not  had  time  to 
select  a  person  whom  he  would  nominate,  and  when  he  could  not  trust  the  officer 
then  in  possession  of  the  office  to  continue  in  it,  when  it  was  necessary  for  him 
by  a  special  order  to  remove  him  from  the  office  wholly  independent  of  any 
nomination  sent  in  to  the  Senate.  Let  me  bring  before  your  consideration  for  a 
moment  a  very  striking  case  which  happened  recently  enougli  to  be  within  the 
knowledge  of  many  of  you.  We  were  on  the  eve  of  a  civil  war ;  the  War 
25  I  p 


386  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Department  was  in  the  hands  of  a  man  who  was  di.-^loyal  and  unfaithful  to  his 
trust.  His  chief  clerk,  who  on  his  removal  or  resignation  would  come  into  the 
place,  was  belived  to  be  in  the  same  category  Avith  his  master.  Under  those 
circumstances  the  President  of  the  United  States  said  to  Mr.  Floyd,  "  I  must 
have  possession  of  this  office  ;"  and  Mr.  Floyd  had  too  much  good  sense  or 
good  manners,  or  something  else,  to  do  anything  but  resign,  and  instantly  the 
President  put  into  the  place  General  Holt,  the  Postmaster  General  of  the  United 
States  at  the  time,  without  the  delay  of  an  hour.  It  was  a  time  when  a  delay 
of  twenty-four  hours  might  have  been  of  vast  practi'.'al  consequence  to  the 
country.  Theie  are  classes  of  cases  arising  in  all  the  departments  of  that 
character  followed  by  that  action,  and  we  shall  bring  before  you  evidcuice  show- 
ing what  those  cases  have  been,  so  that  it  will  appear  that  so  long  as  officers 
held  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President  and  wholly  independent  of  the  advice 
which  he  might  receive  in  regard  to  their  removal  from  the  Senate,  so  long, 
whenever  there  was  an  occasion,  the  President  used  the  power,  whether  the 
Senate  was  in  session  or  not. 

I  have  now  gone  over,  senators,  the  considerations  which  seem  to  me  to  be 
applicable  to  the  tenure-of-office  bill,  and  to  this  allegation  which  is  made  that 
the  President  knowingly  violated  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  the 
order  for  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  fi-om  office  while  the  Senate  Avas  in 
session  ;  and  the  counsel  for  the  President  feel  that  it  is  not  essential  to  his 
vindication  from  this  charge  to  go  further  upon  this  subject.  Nevertheless, 
there  is  a  broader  view  upon  this  matter,  which  is  an  actual  part  of  the  case, 
and  it  is  due  to  the  President  it  shoidd  be  brought  before  you,  that  I  now  pro- 
pose to  open  to  your  consideration. 

The  Constitution  requires  the  President  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faith- 
fully executed.  It  also  requires  of  him,  as  a  qualification  for  his  office,  to 
swear  that  he  will  faithfully  execute  the  laws,  and  that,  to  the  best  of  his 
ability,  he  Avill  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  I  suppose  every  one  will  agree  that  so  long  as  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  in  good  faith,  is  endeavoring  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faith- 
fully executed,  and  in  good  faith,  and  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  is  preserving, 
protecting,  and  defending  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  although  he 
may  be  making  mistakes,  he  is  not  committing  high  crimes  or  misdemeanors. 

In  the  execution  of  these  duties,  the  President  found,  for  reasons  which  it  is 
not  my  province  at  this  time  to  enter  upon,  but  which  will  be  exhibited  to  you 
hereafter,  that  it  was  impossible  to  allow  Mr.  Stanton  to  continue  to  hold  the 
office  of  one  of  his  advisers,  and  to  be  responsible  for  his  conduct  in  the  man- 
ner he  was  required  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  to  be  responsible,  any  longer. 
This  was  intimated  to  Mr.  Stantion,  and  did  not  produce  the  efiect  which, 
according  to  the  general  judgment  of  Avell-informed  men,  such  intimations 
usually  produce.  Thereupon  the  President  first  suspended  jMr.  Stanton  and 
reported  that  to  the  Senate.  Certain  proceedings  took  place  which  will  be 
advel'ted  to  more  ])articularly  pr(!sently.  They  resulted  in  the  return  of  -\Ir. 
Stanton  to  the  occupation  by  him  of  this  office.  Then  it  became  necessary  for 
the  President  to  consider,  first,  whether  this  tenure-of  office  law  applied  to  the 
case  of  Mr.  Stanton  ;  secondly,  if  it  did  ajt})ly  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Stanton, 
whether  the  law  itself  was  the  law  of  the  land,  or  was  merely  inoperative 
because  it  exceeded  the  constitutional  power  of  the  legislature. 

I  am  awai-e  that  it  is  asserted  to  be  the  civil  and  moral  duty  of  all  men 
to  obey  those  laws  which  have  becui  passed  through  all  the  forms  of  legislation 
until  they  shall  have  been  decreed  by  judicial  authority  not  to  be  binding;  but 
this  is  too  broad  a  statment  of  the  civil  and  moral  duty  incumbent  either  upon 
private  citizens  or  public  officers,  li'  this  is  the  measure  of  duty  there  never 
could  be  a  judicial  decision  that  a  law  is  unconstitutional,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
only  by  disregarding  a  law  that  any  question  cau  be  raised  judicially  under  it. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PEESIDENT.  387 

I  submit  to  senators  tliat  not  only  is  tliere  no  sucli  rule  of  civil  or  moral  duty,  but 
tbat  it  may  be  and  has  been  a  high  and  patriotic  duty  of  a  citizen  to  raise  a  (|ues- 
tion  wlietlier  a  law  is  within  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  Will  any  man 
question  the  patriotism  or  the  in'Oi)riety  of  John  Hampden's  act  when  he  brought 
the  question  whether  "ship  money"  was  within  the  Constitution  of  England 
before  the  courts  of  England?  Not  only  is  there  no  such  rule  incumbent  upon 
private  citizens  which  forbids  them  to  raise  such  questions,  but,  let  me  repeat, 
there  may  be,  as  tliere  not  unfrequently  have  been,  instances  in  which  the  highest 
patriotism  and  the  purest  civil  and  moral  duty  require  it  to  be  done.  Let  me 
ask  any  of  you,  if  you  were  a  trustee  for  the  rights  of  third  persons,  and  those 
rights  of  third  persons,  which  they  could  not  defend  themselves  by  reason,  per- 
haps, of  sex  or  age,  should  be  attacked  by  an  unconstitutional  law,  should  you 
not  deem  it  to  be  your  sacred  duty  to  resist  it  and  have  the  question  tried  ?  And 
if  a  private  trustee  may  be  subject  to  such  a  duty,  and  impelled  by  it  to  such 
action,  how  is  it  possible  to  maintain  tbat  he  who  is  a  trustee  for  the  people  of 
powers  confided  to  him  for  their  protection,  for  their  security,  for  their  benefit, 
may  not  in  that  character  of  trustee  defend  what  has  thus  been  confided  to  him? 

Do  not  let  me  be  misunderstood  on  this  subject.  I  am  not  intending  to 
advance  upon  or  occupy  any  extreme  ground,  because  no  such  extreme  ground 
has  been  advanced  upon  or  occupied  by  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
He  is  to  take  care  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed.  When  a  law  has  been 
passed  through  the  forms  of  legislation,  either  with  his  assent  or  without  his 
assent,  it  is  his  duty  to  see  that  that  law  is  faithfully  executed  so  long  as  nqtbing 
is  required  of  him  but  ministerial  action.  He  is  not  to  erect  himself  into  a 
judicial  court  and  decide  that  the  law  is  unconstitutional,  and  that  therefore  he 
will  not  execute  it ;  for,  if  tbat  wei-e  done,  manifestly  there  never  could  be  a 
judicial  decision.  He  Avould  not  only  veto  a  law,  but  he  would  refuse  all  action 
iinder  the  law  after  it  bad  been  passed,  and  thus  prevent  any  judicial  decision 
from  being  made.  He  asserts  no  such  power.  He  has  no  such  idea  of  bis  duty. 
His  idea  of  his  duty  is,  that  if  a  law  is  passed  over  his  veto  which  he  believes 
to  be  unconstitutional,  and  tbat  law  afiects  the  interests  of  third  persons,  those 
whose  interests  are  affected  must  take  care  of  them,  vindicate  them,  raise  ques- 
tions concerning  them,  if  they  should  be  so  advised.  If  such  a  law  affects  the 
general  and  public  interests  of  the  people,  the  people  must  take  care  at  the  polls 
that  it  is  remedied  in  a  constitutional  way. 

But  when,  senators,  a  question  arises  whether  a  particular  law  has  cut  off  a 
power  confided  to  him  by  the  people,  through  the  Constitution,  and  he  alone 
can  raise  that  question,  and  he  alone  can  cause  a  judicial  decision  to  come  between 
the  two  branches  of  the  government  to  say  which  of  them  is  right,  and  after 
due  deliljeration,  with  the  advice  of  those  who  are  his  proper  advisers,  he  settles 
down  firmly  upon  the  opinion  that  such  is  the  character  of  the  law,  it  remains 
to  be  decided  by  you  whether  there  is  any  violation  of  his  duty  when  he  takes 
the  needful  steps  to  raise  that  question  and  have  it  peacefully  decided. 

Where  shall  the  line  be  drawn  ?  Suppose  a  law  should  provide  that  the 
President  of  the  United  States  should  not  make  a  treaty  with  England  or  with 
any  other  country.  It  Avould  be  a  plain  infraction  of  his  constitutional  power, 
and  if  an  occasion  arose  when  such  a  treaty  was  in  his  judgment  expedient  and 
necessary  it  would  be  his  duty  to  make  it ;  and  the  fact  that  it  should  be 
declared  to  be  a  high  misdemeanor  if  he  made  it  would  no  more  relieve  him  from 
the  responsibility  of  acting  through  the  fear  of  that  law  than  he  would  be  relieved 
of  that  responsibility  by  a  bribe  not  to  act. 

Suppose  a  law  that  he  shall  not  be  Commander-in-chief  in  part  or  in  whole — 
a  plain  case,  I  will  suppose,  of  an  infraction  of  that  provision  of  the  Constitu'- 
tion  which  has  confided  to  him  that  command ;  the  Constitution  intending  that 
the  bead  of  all  the  military  power  of  the  country  should  be  a  civil  magistrate,  to 
the  end  tbat  the  law  may  always  be  superior  to  arms.     Suppose  ha  should  resist 


388  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

a  statute  of  that  kind  in  the  manner  I  have  spoken  of  by  bringing  it  to  a  judicial 
decision  ? 

It  maybe  said  these  are  plain  cases  of  express  infractions  of  the  Constitution; 
but  Avhat  is  the  difference  between  a  power  conferred  upon  the  President  by  the 
express  words  of  the  Constitution  and  a  power  conferred  upon  the  President  by 
a  clear  and  sufficient  implication  in  the  Constitution  ?  Where  does  the  power 
to  make  banks  come  from  ?  Where  does  the  power  come  from  to  limit  Congress 
in  assigning  original  jurisdiction  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  one 
of  the  eases  referred  to  the  other  day  1  Where  do  a  multitude  of  powers  upon 
which  Congress  acts  come  from  in  the  Constitution  except  by  foir  implications  ? 
Whence  do  you  derive  the  power,  while  you  are  limiting  the  tenure  of  office,  to 
confer  on  the  Senate  the  right  to  prevent  removals  without  their  consent  ?  Is 
that  expressly  given  in  the  Constitution,  or  is  it  an  implication  which  is  made 
from  some  of  its  provisions  ? 

I  submit  it  is  impossible  to  draw  any  line  of  duty  for  the  President  simply 
because  a  power  is  derived  from  an  implication  in  the  Constitution  instead  of 
from  an  express  provision.  One  thing  unquestionably  is  to  be  expected  of  the 
President  on  all  such  occasions,  that  is,  that  he  should  carefully  consider  the 
question  ;  that  he  should  ascertain  that  it  necessarily  arises ;  that  he  should  be 
of  opinion  that  it  is  necessary  to  the  public  service  that  it  should  be  decided ; 
that  he  should  take  all  competent  and  proper  advice  on  the  subject.  When  he 
has  done  all  this,  if  he  finds  that  he  cannot  allow  the  law  to  operate  in  the  par- 
ticular case  without  abandoning  a  power  which  he  believes  has  been  confided  to 
him  by  the  people,  it  is  his  solemn  conviction  that  it  is  his  duty  to  assert  the 
power  and  obtain  a  judicial  decision  thereon.  And  although  he  does  not  per- 
ceive, nor  do  his  counsel  perceive,  that  it  is  essential  to  his  defence  in  this  case 
to  maintain  this  part  of  the  argument,  nevertheless,  if  this  tribunal  should  be 
of  that  opinion,  then  before  this  tribunal,  before  all  the  people  of  tlte  United 
States,  and  before  the  civilized  world,  he  asserts  the  truth  of  this  ])osition. 

I  am  compelled  now  to  ask  your  attention,  quite  briefly,  however,  to  some 
considei-ations  which  weighed  upon  the  mind  of  the  President  and  led  hira  to 
the  conclusion  that  this  was  one  of  the  powers  of  his  office  which  it  was  his 
duty,  in  the  manner  I  have  indicated,  to  endeavor  to  preserve. 

The  question  whether  the  Constitution  has  lodged  the  power  of  removal  with 
the  President  alone,  with  the  President  and  Senate,  or  left  it  to  Congress  to  be 
determined  at  its  will  in  fixing  the  tenure  of  offices,  was,  as  all  senators  know, 
debated  in  1789  with  surpassing  ability  and  knowledge  of  the  frame  and  neces- 
sities of  our  government. 

Now,  it  is  a  rule  long  settled,  existing,  I  suppose,  in  all  civiliziMl  countries, 
certainly  in  every  system  of  law  that  I  have  any  acquaintance  with,  that  a  con- 
temporary exposition  of  a  law  made  by  those  Avho  were  competent  to  give  it  a 
construction  is  of  very  great  weight ;  and  that  when  such  contemporary  expo- 
sition has  been  made  of  a  law,  and  it  has  been  followed  by  an  actual  and  prac- 
tical construction  in  accordance  with  that  contemporary  exposition,  continued 
during  a  long  period  of  time  and  applied  to  great  numbers  of  cases,  it  is  after- 
ward too  late  to  call  in  questiiui  the  correctness  of  such  a  construction.  The 
rule  is  laid  down,  in  the  quaint  language  of  Lord  Coke,  in  this  form  : 

Great  rcp^ard  ouji^lit,  in  constniinp^  a  law,  to  be  paid  to  the  construction  which  the  sa^cs 
who  lived  about  the  time  or  soon  after  it  was  made  put  upon  it,  Ijccause  they  were  liest  able 
to  judf^e  of  the  iuteutioii  of  the  niaU(>rs  at  the  time  when  tlie  hiw  was  uiadc.  Contenijiorauca 
crpusiliu  est  furtinnima  in  Irire. 

I  desire  to  bring  before  the  Senate  in  this  connection,  inasmuch  as  I  think 
the  subject  has  been  frequently  misunderstood,  tin;  form  taken  by  that  debate 
of  1789  and  the  result  which  was  attained.  In  order  to  do  so,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  avoid  fatiguing  your  attention  by  looking  minutely  into  the  debate  itself, 
I  beg  leaye  to  read  a  passage  from  Chief  Justice  Marshall's  Life  of  Washington, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  389 

where  he  has  Piimmod  up  the  whole.     The  writer  says,  on  page  162  of  the  sec- 
ond volume  of  the  Phihulelphia  edition  : 

After  an  artlont  discussion,  -vvhicli  consumed  several  days,  the  committee  divided,  and 
the  amendment  was  neg-atived  by  a  niajcn-ity  of  thirty-four  to  twenty.  Tlie  opinion  thus 
expres9<jd  by  llie  House  of  Kepresentatives  did  not  explicitly  convey  their  sense  of  the  Con- 
stitution. Indeed,  the  express  o;rant  of  the  power  to  tlie  President  rather  implied  a  ri|rht  in 
the  legislature  to  Ji'ive  or  witldiold  it  at  tlieir  discretion.  To  obviate  any  misunderstaiidin;^ 
of  the  ])rinciple  on  which  the  question  hml  been  decided,  Mr.  I5ensou  moved  in  the  House, 
when  the  reporfof  tlie  Committee  of  the  Whole  was  taken  up,  to  amend  the;  second  clause  in 
the  bill  so  as  clearly  to  imply  the  jjower  of  removal  to  be  solely  in  the  President,  He  gave 
notice  that  if  he  should  succeed  in  this  he  would  move  to  strike  out  the  words  wliich  had 
been  the  suliject  of  debate.  If  those  words  continued,  he  said,  the  power  of  removal  by  the 
President  might  hereafter  appear  to  be  exercised  by  virtxie  of  a  legislative  grant  only,  and 
consequently  be  subjected  to  legislative  instability;  when  he  was  well  satisfied  in  his  own 
mind  that  it  was  bj-  tair  construction  fixed  in  the  Constitution.  The  motion  ^vas  seconded 
by  Mr.  Madison,  and  both  amendments  were  adopted.  As  the  bill  passed  into  a  law,  it  has 
ever  been  considered  as  a  full  expression  of  tlie  sense  of  the  legislature  on  this  important  part 
of  the  American  Constitution. 

Some  alh'.sion  has  been  made  to  the  fact  that  this  law  was  passed  in  the  Sen- 
ate only  by  the  casting-  vote  of  the  Vice-President ;  and  upon  that  subject  I  beg 
leave  to  refer  to  the  life  of  Mr.  Adams  by  his  grandson,  volume  one  of  his  works, 
pages  448  to  450.  He  here  gives  an  account,  so  far  as  could  be  ascertained 
from  the  papers  of  President  Adams,  of  what  that  debate  was,  and  finally  ter- 
minates the  subject  in  this  way: 

"  These  reasons,"  that  is,  the  reasons  of  Vice-President  Adams — 

Were  not  committed  to  paper,  however,  and  can  therefore  never  be  known.  But  in  their 
soundness  it  is  certain  that  he  never  had  the  shadow  of  a  doubt. 

I  desire  leave,  also,  to  refer  on  this  subject  to  the  first  volume  of  Story's  Com- 
mentaries on  the  Constitution,  section  four  hundred  and  eight,  in  support  of  the 
rule  of  interpretation  which  I  have  stated  to  the  Senate.  It  will  there  be  found 
that  it  is  stated  by  the  learned  commentator  that  a  contemporaneous  construction 
of  the  Constitution  made  under  certain  circumstances,  which  he  describes,  is  of 
very  great  weight  in  determining  its  meaning.     He  says  : 

After  all  the  most  unexceptionable  source  of  collateral  interpretation  is  from  the  practical 
exposition  of  the  government  itself  in  its  various  departments  upon  particular  questions  dis- 
cussed and  settled  upon  their  own  single  merits.  These  approach  the  nearest  in  their  own 
nature  to  judicial  expositions,  and  have  the  same  general  recommendation  that  belongs  to 
the  hitter.  They  are  decided  upon  solid  argument,  'pro  re  nala,  upon  a  doubt  raised,  upon  a 
lis  mota,  upon  a  deep  sense  of  their  importance  and  difHculty,  in  the  face  of  the  nation,  Avith 
a  view  to  present  action  in  the  midst  of  jealous  interests,  and  by  men  capable  of  urging  or 
repelling  the  grounds  of  argument  from  their  exquisite  genius,  their  comprehensive  learning, 
or  their  deep  meditation  upon  the  absorbing  topic.  How  light,  compared  with  these  means 
of  instruction,  are  the  private  lucubrations  of  the  closet  or  the  retired  speculations  of  inge- 
nious minds,  intent  on  theory  or  general  views,  and  unused  to  encounter  a  practical  diffi- 
culty at  every  step ! 

On  comparing  the  decision  made  in  1789  with  the  tests  which  are  here  sug- 
gested by  the  learned  commentator,  it  will  be  found,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
precise  question  was  irnder  discussion ;  secondly,  that  there  was  a  deep  sense 
of  its  importance,  for  it  was  seen  that  the  decision  was  not  to  affect  a  few  cases 
lying  here  and  there  in  the  course  of  the  government,  but  that  it  would  enter 
deeply  into  its  practical  and  daily  administration  ;  and  in  the  next  place  the 
determination  was,  so  far  as  such  determination  could  be  entertained,  thereby  to 
fix  a  system  for  the  future  •  and  in  the  last  place  the  men  who  participated  ia 
it  must  be  admitted  to  have  been  exceedingly  Avell  qualified  for  their  work. 

There  is  another  rule  to  be  added  to  this  which  is  also  one  of  very  frequent 
application,  and  it  is  that  a  long-continued  practical  application  of  a  decision  of 
this  character  by  those  to  whom  the  execution  of  a  law  is  confided  is  of  decisive 
weight.  To  borrow  again  from  Lord  Coke  on  this  subject,  "  Opfimus  legum 
micrpres  consuetudo" — "  practice  is  the  best  interpreter  of  law."  Now,  what 
followed  this  original  decision  'i     From  1789  down  to  1867,  every  President  and 


390  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    TRESIDENT. 

every  Congress  participated  in  and  acted  under  the  construction  given  in  1789. 
Not  only  did  the  government  so  conduct,  but  it  was  a  subject  sufficiently  dis- 
cussed among  the  people  to  bring  to  their  consideration  that  such  a  question  had 
existed,  had  been  started,  had  been  settled  in  this  manner,  had  been  raised  again 
from  time  to  time,  and  yet,  as  everybody  knows,  so  far  from  the  people  interfer- 
ing with  this  decision,  so  far  from  ever  expressing  in  any  manner  their  disap- 
probation of  the  practice  which  had  grown  up  under  it,  not  one  party  nor  two 
parties,  but  all  parties  favored  and  acted  upon  this  system  of  government. 

Mr.  Edmunds,  (at  2  o'clock  and  25  minutes  p.  m.)  Mr.  President,  if  agreeable 
to  the  honorable  counsel,  I  will  move  that  the  Senate  take  a  recess  for  fifteen 
minutes. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

"The  Chief  Justice  resumed  the  chair  at  15  minutes  to  3  o'clock,  and  called 
the  Senate  to  order. 

Mr.  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  (after  a  pause.)  I  move  that  the  Senate  do  now 
adjourn — I  see  that  most  of  the  senators  are  away — and  on  that  motion  I  ask 
for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  Co\KLL\G.  What  is  the  motion  ?     I  did  not  hear  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  motion  is  to  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock, 
and  upon  that  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  are  ordered. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  2,  nays  35  ;  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  McCreery,  rbcI  Patterson  of  Tennessee — 2. 

Nays — Messrs.  Buckalew,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkliug,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Davis, 
Dixon,  Doolittle,  Drake,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Frelingliuysen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hend- 
ricks, Howard,  Howe,  Joliuson,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  jNIaine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton, 
Pomeroy,  Eoss,  Slierman,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tijiton,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey, 
and  Yates — '3'>. 

XOT  Voting— Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Cameron,  Conness,  Edmunds,  Fowler,  Harlan, 
Norton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Eamsey,  Saulsbury,  Sprague,  Trumbull,  Wade, 
Williams,  and  Wilson — 17. 

So  the  Senate  refused  to  adjourn. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  will  proceed  with  the 
argument. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  when  the  Senate  adjourned 
I  was  asking  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  practical  interpretation  was  put 
upon  the  Constitution  in  1789,  and  that  it  had  been  continued  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  legislative  and  executive  branches  of  the  government  down  to 
1567,  affecting  so  great  a  variety  of  interests,  embracing  so  many  offices,  so 
•well  known,  not  merely  to  the  members  of  the  government  themselves,  but  to 
the  people  of  the  country,  that  it  was  impossible  to  doubt  that  it  had  received 
their  sanction,  as  well  as  the  sanction  of  the  executive  and  the  legislative 
branches  of  the  government. 

This  is  a  subject  which  has  been  heretofore  examined  and  passed  upon  judi- 
cially in  very  numerous  cases.  I  do  not  speak  now,  of  course,  of  judicial 
decisions  of  this  particular  question  which  is  under  consideration,  whether  the 
Constitution  has  lodged  the  power  of  removal  in  the  /President  alone,  or  in  the 
President  and  Senate,  or  has  left  it  to  be  a  part  of  the  legislative  power ;  but 
I  speak  of  the  judicial  exjjosition  of  the  eft'ect  of  such  a  practical  construction 
of  the  Constitution  t)f  tlie  United  States,  originated  in  the  way  in  which  this 
was  originated,  continued  in  the  w.iy  in  Avhich  this  was  continued,  and  sanc- 
tioned in  the  way  in  which  this  has  been  sanctioned. 

There  was  a  very  early  case  that  arose  soon  after  the  organization  of  the 
government,  and  which  is  reported  under  the  name  of  Stuart  vs.  Laird,  in  1 
('ranch's  Reports,  299.  It  was  a  question  concerning  the  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution  concerning  the  power  which  the  Congress  had  to  assign  to  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  391 

judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  circuit  duties.  From  tliat  time  down  to  tlie  deci- 
sion in  the  case  of  Cooley  rs.  The  l*ort  Wardens  of  Phihidelphia,  reported  in  12 
Howard,  315,  a  period  of  more  thau  half  a  century,  there  has  been  a  series  of 
decisions  upon  the  eftect  of  such  a  contemporaneous  construction  of  the  Consti- 
tution, followed  by  such  a  practice  in  accordance  with  it;  and  it  is  now  a  fixed 
and  settled  rule,  which  I  think  no  lawyer  will  undertake  to  controvert,  that  the 
effect  of  such  a  construction  is  not  merely  to  give  weight  to  an  argument,  but  to 
fix  an  interpretation.  Aijd  accordingly  it  will  be  found  by  looking  into  the  books 
written  by  those  who  were  conversant  with  this  subject,  that  they  have  so  con- 
sidered and  received  it.  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  most  eminent  of  all  the 
commentators  on  American  law,  and  to  read  a  line  or  two  from  Chancellor  Kent's 
Lectures,  found  in  the  first  volume,  page  310,  marginal  paging.  After  consid- 
ering this  subject,  and,  it  should  be  noted  in  reference  to  this  very  learned  and 
experienced  jurist,  considering  it  in  an  unfavorable  light,  because  he  himself 
thought  that  as  an  original  question  it  had  better  have  been  settled  the  other 
way;  that  it  would  have  been  more  logical,  more  in  conformit}'  with  his  views 
of  Avhat  the  practical  needs  of  the  government  were,  that  the  Senate  should  par- 
ticipate with  the  President  in  the  power  of  removal;  nevertheless  he  sums  it  all 
up  in  these  words : 

This  amounted  to  a  legislative  construction  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  has  ever  since  been 
acquiesced  in  and  acted  upon  as  of  decisive  authority  in  the  case.  It  applies  equally  to  every 
other  officer  of  the  government  appointed  by  the  President  and  Senate,  wliose  term  of  dura- 
tion is  not  specially  declared.  It  is  supported  by  the  weighty  reason  that  the  subordinate 
officers  in  the  executive  department  ought  to  hold  at  the  pleasure  of  tlie  head  of  that  depart- 
ment, because  he  is  invested  generally  with  the  executive  authority,  and  every  participation 
in  that  authority  by  the  Senate  was  an  exception  to  a  general  principle,  and  ought  to  be  taken 
strictly.  The  President  is  the  great  responsible  officer  for  the  faithful  execution  of  the  law, 
and  the  power  of  removal  was  incidental  to  that  duty,  and  might  often  be  requisite  to  fulfil  it. 

This,  I  believe,  will  be  found  to  be  a  fair  expression  of  the  opinions  of  those 
who  have  had  occasion  to  examine  this  subject  in  their  closets  as  a  matter  of 
speculation. 

In  this  case,  however,  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  to  consider  not 
merely  the  general  question  where  this  power  was  lodged,  not  merely  the  effect 
of  this  decision  made  in  1789,  and  the  practice  of  the  government  under  it  since, 
but  he  had  to  consider  a  particular  law,  the  provisions  of  which  were  before 
him,  and  might  have  an  application  to  the  case  upon  which  he  felt  called  upon 
to  act;  and  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  do  justice  to  the  President  in  reference 
to  this  matter,  to  see  Avhat.  the  theory  of  that  law  is  and.  what  its  operation  is 
or  must  be,  if  any,  upon  the  case  which  he  had  before  him  ;  namely,  the  case  of 
Mr.  Stanton. 

During  the  debate  in  1789  there  were  three  distinct  theories  held  by  differ- 
ent pei'sons  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  One  was  that  the  Constitution 
had  lodged  the  power  of  removal  with  the  President  alone;  another  was  that 
the  Constitution  had  lodged  that  power  with  the  President,  acting  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate ;  the  third  was  that  the  Constitution  had 
lodged  it  nowhere,  but  had  left  it  to  the  legislative  power,  to  be  acted  upon  in 
connection  with  the  prescription  of  the  tenure  of  office.  The  last  of  these  the- 
ories was  at  that  day  held  by  comparatively  few  persons.  The  first  two  received 
not  only  much  the  greater  number  of  votes,  but  much  the  greater  weight  of 
i-easoning  in  the  course  of  that  debate;  so  much  so  that  when  this  subject  came 
under  the  consideration  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case 
of  fx^^ar^fe  Hennan,  collaterally  only,  Mr.  Justice  Thompson,  who  delivered 
the  opinion  of  the  court  on  that  occasion,  says  that  it  has  never  been  doubted 
that  the  Constitution  had  lodged  the  power  either  in  the  President  alone  or  in 
the  President  and  Senate — certainly  an  inaccuracy ;  but  then  it  required  a  very 
close  scrutiny  of  the  debates  and  a  careful   examination  of  the  few  individual 


392  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

opinions  pxpres?ed  in  that  debate,  in  tbat  direction,  to  ascertain  that  it  ever  had 
been  doubted  that,  one  way  or  the  other,  the  Constitution  settled  the  question. 

Nevertheless,  as  I  understand  it — I  may  be  mistaken  in  this — but,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  it  is  the  theory  of  this  law  which  the  President  had  before  him,  that 
both  these  opinions  were  wrong;  that  the  Constitution  has  not  lodged  the  power 
anywhere;  that  it  has  left  it  as  an  incident  to  the  legislative  power,  which  inci- 
dent may  be  controlled,  of  course,  by  the  legislature  itself,  according  to  its  own 
will ;  because,  as  Chief  Justice  Marshall  somewhere  remarks,  (and  it  is  one  of 
those  profound  remarks  which  will  be  found  to  have  been  carried  by  him  into 
many  of  his  decisions,)  when  it  comes  to  a  question  whether  a  power  exists  the 
particular  mode  in  which  it  may  be  exercised  must  be  left  to  the  will  of  the 
body  that  possesses  it ;  and,  therefoie,  if  this  be  a  legislative  power,  it  was  very 
apparent  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  it  had  been  very  apparent  to 
i\Ir.  Madison,  as  was  declared  by  him  in  the  course  of  his  correspondence  with 
Mr.  Coles,  which  is,  no  doubt,  familiar  to  senators,  that  if  this  be  a  legislative 
power  the  legislature  may  lodge  it  in  the  Senate,  may  retain  it  in  the  whole 
body  of  Congress,  or  may  give  it  to  the  House  of  Representatives.  I  repeat, 
the  President  had  to  consider  this  particular  law ;  and  that,  as  I  understand  it, 
is  the  theory  of  that  law.  I  do"  not  undertake  to  say  it  is  an  unfounded  theory  ; 
I  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  it  may  not  be  maintained  successfully  ;  but  I  do 
undertake  to  say  that  it  is  one  which  was  originally  i-ejected  by  the  ablest  minds 
that  had  this  subject  under  consideration  in  1789  ;  that  whenever  the  question 
has  been  started  since,  it  has  had,  to  a  recent  period,  very  few  advocates;  and 
that  no  fair  and  candid  mind  can  deny  that  it  is  capable  of  being  doubted  and 
disbelieved  after  examination.  It  may  be  the  truth,  after  all ;  but  it  is  not  a 
truth  which  shines  with  such  clear  and  certain  light  that  a  man  is  guilty  of  a 
crime  because  he  does  not  see  it. 

The  President  not  only  had  to  consider  this  particular  law,  but  he  had  to  con- 
sider its  constitutional  application  to  this  particular  case,  supposing  the  case  of 
Mr.  Stanton  to  be,  what  I  have  endeavored  to  argue  it  was  not,  within  its  terms. 
Let  us  assume,  then,  iliat  his  case  Avas  within  its  terms ;  let  us  assume  that  this 
proviso,  in  describing  the  cases  of  Secretaries,  described  the  case  of  Mr.  Stanton; 
that  Mr.  Stanton,  having  been  appointed  by  Pn;sident  Lincoln  in  January,  1862, 
and  commissioned  to  hold  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  by  force  of  this 
law  acquired  a  right  to  hold  this  office  against  the  will  of  the  President  down  to 
April,  1809.  Now,  there  is  one  thing  which  has  never  been  doubted  under  the 
Constitution,  is  incapable  of  being  doubted,  allow  me  to  say,  and  that  is,  that 
the  President  is  to  make  the  choice  of  officers.  Whether  having  made  the  choice, 
and  they  being  inducted  into  office,  they  can  be  removed  by  him  alone,  is  another 
question.  Put  to  the  President  alone  is  confided  the  power  of  choice.  In  the 
first  place,  he  alone  can  nominate.  When  the  Senate  has  advised  the  nomina- 
tion, consented  to  the  nomination,  he  is  not  bound  to  commission  the  officer.  He 
has  a  second  opportunity  for  consideration,  and  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the 
choice  he  had  originally  made.  On  this  subject  allow  me  to  read  from  the  opin- 
ion of  Chief  Justice  ^larshall  in  the  case  of  iLarbury  vs.  Madison,  where  it  is 
expressed  more  clearly  than  I  can  express  it.  After  enumerating  the  different 
clauses  of  the  Constitution  which  bear  upon  this  subject,  he  says  : 

These  are  the  clauses  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  which  affect  this 
part  ot"  the  case.     They  s^ein  to  fontoinplute  three  distinct  oi)erations: 

1.  'J'iic  nuiiiinatiou.     This  is  the  sole  act  ot"  the  President,  and  i.s  completely  volnntary. 

2.  The  appointment.  'I'iiis  is  also  the  act  of  tlie  President,  and  is  also  a  volnntaiy  act, 
though  it  can  only  bo  performed  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

3.  The  coirunission.  To  prant  a  commission  to  a  person  appointed  mig-ht,  perhaps,  be 
deemed  a  dnty  enjonied  l)y  tlie  Constitution.  "He  sliall,"  says  that  instrument,  "  commis- 
sion all  the  otiicers  of  the  United  States."     (1  Cranch,  155.) 

He  then  goes  into  various   considerations   to  show  that  it  is  not  a  duty  en- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PEESIDENT.  393 

joined  by  the  Constitution  ;  that  it  is  optional  with  him  "whether  he  will  commis- 
sion even  after  an  appointment  has  b(;en  confirmed,  and  he  says  : 

The  last  act  to  be  done  by  the  President  is  the  signature  of  tlie  commission.  ITe  has 
then  acted  on  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  to  his  own  nomination.  The  time  for 
deliberation  has  then  passed.  He  has  decidi'd.  His  judgment,  on  tlie  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate  concurring  with  his  nomination,  has  been  made,  aud  the  otlicer  is  apj)oiuted. 
(llmL,  157.) 

The  choice,  then,  is  with  the  President.  The  action  of  the  Senate  upon  that 
choice  is  an  advisory  action  only  at  a  particular  stage  after  the  nominal  ion,  be- 
fore the  appointment  or  the  commission.  Now.  as  I  have  said  before,  Mr,  Stan- 
ton was  appointed  under  the  law  of  1789,  constituting  the  War  Department, 
and  in  accordance  with  that  law  he  was  commissioned  to  hold  during  the  plea- 
sure of  the  President.  President  Lincoln  had  said  to  the  Senate,  "  I  nominate 
Mr.  Stanton  to  hold  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  during 
the  pleasure  of  the  President."  The  Senate  had  said,  "  we  assent  to  Mr.  Stan- 
ton's holding  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  during  the 
pleasure  of  the  President."  What  does  this  tenure-of-office  law  say,  if  it  oper- 
ates on  the  case  of  Mr.  Stanton?  It  says  Mr.  Stanton  shall  hold  oflice  against 
the  will  of  the  President,  contrary  to  the  terms  of  his  commission,  contrary  to 
the  law  under  which  he  was  appointed,  down  to  the  4th  of  April,  1869.  For 
this  new,  fixed,  and  extended  term,  where  is  Mr.  Stanton's  commission  1  Who 
has  made  the  appointment  ?  Who  has  assented  to  it?  It  is  a  legislative  com- 
mission ;  is  is  a  legislative  appointment ;  it  is  assented  to  by  Congress  acting  in 
its  legislative  capacity.  The  President  has  had  no  voice  in  the  matter.  The 
Senate,  as  the  advisers  of  the  President,  have  had  no  voice  in  the  matter.  If 
he  holds  at  all,  he  holds  by  force  of  legislation,  aud  not  by  any  choice  made  by 
the  President,  or  assented  to  by  the  Senate.  And  this  was  the  case,  and  the 
only  case,  which  the  President  had  before  him,  and  on  which  he  was  called  to 
act. 

JSTow,  I  ask  senators  to  consider  whether,  for  having  formed  an  opinion  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  lodged  this  power  with  the  Presi- 
dent— an  opinion  which  he  shares  with  every  President  who  has  preceded  him, 
with  every  Congress  which  has  preceded  the  last ;  an  opinion  formed  on  the 
grounds  which  I  have  imperfectly  indicated;  an  opinion  which,  when  applied 
to  this  particular  case,  raises  the  dithculties  which  1  have  indicated  here,  arising 
out  of  the  fact  that  this  law  does  not  pursue  either  of  the  opinions  which  were 
originally  held  in  this  government,  and  have  occasionally  been  started  and 
maintained  by  those  who  are  restless  under  its  administration;  an  opinion  thus 
supported  by  the  practice  of  the  government  from  its  origin  down  to  his  own 
day — is  he  to  be  impeached  for  holding  that  opinion?  If  not,  if  he  might 
honestly  and  properly  form  such  an  opinion  under  the  lights  which  he  had,  and 
with  the  aid  of  the  advice  which  we  shall  show  you  he  received,  then  is  he  to 
be  impeached  for  acting  upon  it  to  the  extent  of  obtaining  a  judicial  decision 
whether  the  executive  department  of  the  government  was  right  in  its  opinion, 
or  the  legislative  department  w^as  right  in  its  opinion?  Strangely  enough,  as  it 
struck  me,  the  honorable  managers  themselves  say,  "No;  he  is  not  to  be 
impeached  for  that "  I  beg  leave  to  read  a  passage  from  the  argument  of  the 
honorable  manager  by  whom  the  prosecution  was  opened  : 

If  the  President  had  really  desired  solely  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  or  his 
legal  right  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton,  instead  of  his  defiant  message  to  the  Senate  of  the  21  st 
ot  February,  informing  them  of  the  removal,  but  not  suggesting  this  purpose,  which  is  thus 
shown  to  be  an  afterthought,  he  would  have  said,  in  sub'stauce :  "Gentlemen  of  the  Senate, 
in  order  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  entitled  'An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of 
certain  civil  offices,'  which  I  verily  believe  to  be  unconstitutional  and  void,  I  have  issued 
an  order  of  removal  of  E.  M.  Stanton  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Department  of 
War.  I  felt  myself  constrained  to  make  this  removal  lest  Mr.  Stanton  should  answer  the 
information  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  icarranto,  which  I  intend  the  Attorney  General  shall  file 


394  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

at  an  early  day,  by  saying  tliat  lio  holds  the  oifice  of  Secretary  of  War  by  the  appointment 
and  authority  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  which  has  never  been  revoked.  Anxious  that  there  shall  be 
no  collision  or  disajjreement  between  the  several  departments  of  the  government  and  the 
Executive,  I  lay  before  the  Senate  this  message,  that  the  reasons  for  my  action,  as  well  as 
tlie  action  itself,  for  the  purpose  indicated,  may  meet  your  concurrence." 

Thus  far  are  marks  of  quotation  showing  the  communication  which  the  Pres- 
ident .should  have  obtained  from  the  honorable  manager  and  sent  to  the  Senate 
in  order  to  make  this  matter  exactly  right.     Then  follows  this  : 

Had  the  Senate  received  .s.i;ch  a  message  the  representatives  of  the  people  might  never 
liave  deemed  it  necessary  to  impeacli  the  President  for  such  an  act  to  insure  the  safety  of 
the  country',  even  if  they  had  denied  the  accuracy  of  his  legal  positions. 

So  that  it  seems  that  it  is,  after  all,  not  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  but  the 
manner  in  w^hich  the  President  communicated  the  fact  of  that  removal  to  the 
Senate  after  it  was  made.  That  manner  is  here,  called  the  "defiant  message" 
of  the  21st  of  February,  That  is  a  question  of  taste.  I  have  read  the  message 
as  you  all  have  read  it.  If  you  can  find  anything  in  it  but  what  is  decorous 
and  respectful  to  this  body  and  to  all  concerned  your  taste  will  differ  from  mine. 
But  whether  it  be  a  point  of  manners  Avell  or  ill  taken,  one  thing  seems  to  be 
quite  clear  :  that  the  President  is  not  impeached  here  because  he  entertained  an 
opinion  that  this  law  was  unconstitutional ;  he  is  not  impeached  here  because 
he  acted  on  that  opinion  and  removed  Mr.  Stanton  ;  but  he  is  impeached  here 
because  the  House  of  Representatives  considers  that  this  honorable  body  was 
addressed  by  a  "defiant  message,"  when  they  should  have  been  addressed  in 
the  terms  which  the  honorable  manager  has  dictated. 

'"I  now  come,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators,  to  another  topic  connected  with 
this  matter  of  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  action  of  the  President  under 
this  law.  The  honorable  managers  take  the  ground,  among  others,  that  whether 
upon  a  true  construction  of  this  tenure-of-otfice  act  3Ir.  Stanton  be  within  it,  or 
even  if  you  should  believe  that  the  President  thought  the  law  unconstitutional 
and  had  a  right,  if  not  trammelled  in  some  way,  to  try  that  question,  still  by 
his  own  conduct  and  declarations  the  President,  as  they  phrase  it,  is  estopped. 
He  is  not  to  be  permitted  here  to  assert  the  true  interpretation  of  this  law  ;  he 
is  not  to  be  permitted  to  allege  that  his  purpose  was  to  raise  a  question  concern- 
ing its  constitutionality  ;  and  the  reason  is  that  he  has  done  and  said  certain 
things.  All  of  us  who  have  read  law-books  know  that  there  i:iin  the  common 
law  a  doctrine  called  rules  of  estop})el,  founded,  undoubtedly',  on  good  reason, 
although,  as  they  are  called  from  the  time  of  Lord  Coke,  or  even  eailier,  down 
to  the  present  day,  odious,  because  they  shut  out  the  truth.  Nevertheless,  there 
are  circumstances  when  it  is  proper  that  the  truth  should  be  shut  out.  What 
are  the  circuinstances  1  They  are  where  a  question  of  private  right  is  involved, 
where  on  a  matter  of  fact  that  private  right  depends,  and  whei*e  one  of  the  par- 
ties to  the  controversy  has  so  conducted  himself  that  he  ought  not  in  good  con- 
science to  be  allowed  either  to  assert  or  d(;ny  that  matter  of  fact. 

But  did  any  one  ever  hear  of  an  estoppel  on  a  matter  of  law  1  Did  any  one 
ever  hear  that  a  party  had  put  himself  into  such  a  condition  that  wheir  he  came 
into  a  court  of  justice  even  to  claim  a  private  right,  he  could  not  a.-^k  tlu^  judge 
correctly  to  construe  a  statute,  and  insist  on  the  construction  when  it  was  arrived 
at  in  his  favor  ?  Did  anybody  ever  hear,  last  of  all,  that  a  man  Avas  convicted 
of  ci^nne  by  reason  of  an  estoppel  under  any  system  of  law  that  ever  prevailed 
in  any  civilized  State?  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  should  be 
impeached  and  removed  Irani  ofiicc,  not  by  reason  of  the  truth  of  his  case,  but 
because;  he  is  estopped  from  telling  it,  would  be  a  spectacle  for  gods  and  men. 
Undoubtedly  it  would  have  a  place  in  history  which  it  is  not  necessary  for  me 
to  attempt  to  foreshadow. 

There  is  no  matter  of  fact  here.  Tln'y  ha\'c  themselves  put  in  ]\[r.  St.-mton's 
commission,  which  shows  the  date  of  the  coinmi.-^sion  and  the  terms  of  the  com- 
mission ;  and  that  is  the  whole  matter  of  fact  which   is  involved.     The  rest  is 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  395 

tlie  constnTction  of  the  tcnure-of-office  act  and  tlic  application  of  it  to  the  case, 
which  they  have  tlius  made  themselves  ;  and  also  the  construction  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  and  the  abstract  public  question  whether  that 
has  lodged  the  power  of  removal  with  the  President  alone,  or  with  the  Pres- 
ident and  Senate,  or  left  it  to  Congress.  I  respectfully  submit,  therefore,  that 
the  ground  is  untenable  that  there  can  be  an  estoppel  by  any  conduct  of  the 
President,  who  comes  here  to  assert,  not  a  private  right,  but  a  great  public  right 
confided  to  the  office  by  the  people,  in  which,  if  anybody  is  estopped,  the  people 
will  be  estopped.  The  President  never  could  do  or  say  anything  which  would 
put  this  great  public  right  into  that  extraordinary  predicament. 

But  what  has  he  done  ?  What  are  the  facts  upon  which  they  rely,  out  of 
which  to  work  this  estoppel,  as  they  call  it  1  In  the  first  place,  he  sent  a  mes- 
sage to  the  Senate  on  the  12th  of  December,  1S67,  in  wliich  he  informed  the 
Senate  that  he  had  suspended  Mr.  Stanton  by  a  certain  order,  a  copy  of  which 
he  gave  ;  that  he  had  appointed  General  Grant  to  exercise  the  duties  of  the 
office  ad  interim  by  a  certain  other  order,  a  copy  of  which  he  gave ;  and  then 
he  entered  into  a  discussion  in  which  he  showed  the  existence  of  this  question, 
whether  Mr.  Stanton  was  within  the  tenure-of office  bill;  the  existence  of  the 
other  question,  whether  this  was  or  was  not  a  constitutional  law;  and  then  he 
invoked  the  action  of  the  Senate.  There  was  nothing  misrepresented.  There 
was  nothing  concealed  which  he  was  bound  to  state.  It  is  complained  of  by 
the  honorable  managers  that  he  did  not  tell  the  Senate  that  if  their  action  should 
be  such  as  to  restore  Mr.  Stanton  practically  to  the  possession  of  the  office  he 
should  go  to  law  about  it.  That  is  the  complaint :  that  he  did  not  tell  that  to 
the  Senate.  It  may  have  been  a  possible  omission,  though  I  rather  think  not. 
I  rather  think  that  that  good  taste  which  is  so  prevalent  among  the  managers, 
and  which  they  so  insist  upon  here,  would  hardly  dictate  that  the  President 
should  have  held  out  to  the  Senate  something  which  might  possibly  have  been 
construed  into  a  threat  upon  that  subject.  He  laid  the  case  before  the  Senate 
for  their  action  ;  and  now,  forsooth,  they  say  he  was  too  deferential  to  this  law, 
both  by  reason  of  this  conduct  of  his,  and  also  what  he  did  upon  other  occasions, 
to  which  I  shall  presently  advert. 

Senators,  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  the  President's  position  or  conduct  in 
reference  to  this  matter.  Suppose  this  case  :  a  party  who  has  a  private  right  in 
question  submits  to  the  same  tribunal  in  the  same  proceeding  these  questions  : 
first,  I  deny  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  under  which  the  right  is  claimed 
against  me ;  second,  I  assert  that  the  true  interpretation  of  that  law  will  not 
aiiect  this  right  which  is  claimed  against  me ;  third,  I  insist  that,  even  if  it  is 
within  the  law,  I  make  a  case  within  the  law — is  there  any  inconsistency  in 
that  1  Is  not  that  done  every  day,  or  something  analogous  to  it,  in  courts  of 
justice  ?  And  where  was  the  inconsistency  on  this  occasion  ?  Suppose  the 
President  had  summed  up  the  message  which  he  sent  to  the  Senate  in  this  way  : 
*'  Gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  I  insist,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  law  is  unconstit- 
utional;  I  insist,  in  the  second*  place,  that  Mr.  Stanton  is  not  within  it;  I 
respectfulh^  submit  for  your  consideration  whether,  if  it  be  a  constitutional  law 
and  Mr.  Stanton's  case  be  within  it,  the  facts  which  I  present  to  you  do  not 
make  such  a  ease  that  you  will  not  advise  me  to  receive  him  back  into  office." 
Suppose  he  had  summed  up  in  that  way,  would  there  have  been  any  inconsist- 
ency then  ?  And  why  is  not  the  substance  of  that  found  in  this  message  1 
Here  it  is  pointed  out  that  the  question  existed  whether  the  law  was  unconsti- 
tutional ;  here  it  is  pointed  out  that  the  question  existed  whether  Mr.  Stanton 
was  within  the  law  ;  and  then  the  President  goes  on  to  submit  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  Senate,  whom  he  had  reason  to  believe,  and  did  believe,  thought  the 
law  was  constitutional,  though  he  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  thought 
Mr.  Stanton  Avas  within  the  law,  the  facts  to  be  acted  upon  within  the  law,  if 
the  case  was  there.     It  seems  the  President  has  not  only  been  thus  anxious  to 


396  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

avoid  a  colli.<ion  with  this  law ;  he  has  not  only  on  this  occasion  taken  this 
means  to  avoid  it,  but  it  seems  that  he  has  actually  in  some  particulars  obeyed 
the  law;  he  has  made  changes  in  the  commissions,  or  rather  they  have  been 
made  in  the  departments,  and,  as  he  has  signed  the  commis;?ions,  I  suppose  they 
must  be  taken,  although  his  attention  does  not  appear  to  have  been  called  to  the 
subject  at  all,  to  have  been  made  with  his  sanction,  just  so  far,  and  because  he 
sanctions  that  which  is  done  by  his  Secretaries,  if  he  does  not  interfere  actively 
to  prevent  it. 

lie  has  done  not  merely  this,  but  he  has  also  in  several  cases — four  cases, 
three  collectors  and  one  c#nsul,  1  think  they  are — sent  into  the  Senate  notice  of 
suspension,  notice  that  he  had  acted  under  this  law  and  suspended  these  officers. 
This  objection  proceeds  upon  an  entire  misapprehension  of  the  position  of  the 
President  and  of  the  views  which  he  has  of  his  own  duty.  It  assumes  that 
because  when  the  emergency  comes,  as  it  did  come  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Stanton, 
when  he  must  act  or  else  abandon  a  power  which  he  finds  in  the  particular 
instance  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  insist  upon  in  order  to  carry  on  the  govern- 
ment— that  because  he  holds  that  opinion  he  must  run  a  muck  against  the  law, 
and  take  every  possible  opportunity  to  give  it  a  blow,  if  he  can.  He  holds  no 
such  opinion. 

So  long  as  it  is  a  question  of  administrative  duty  merely,  he  holds  that  he  is 
bound  to  obey  the  law.  It  is  only  when  the  emergency  arises,  when  the  ques- 
tion is  put  to  him  so  that  he  must  answer  it,  "  Can  you  carry  on  this  department 
of  the  government  any  longer  in  this  way?"  "No."  "Have  you  power  to 
carry  it  on  as  the  public  service  demands  ?"  "  I  believe  I  have."  Then  comes 
the  question  how  he  shall  act.  But  whether  a  consul  is  to  be  suspended  or 
removed,  whether  a  defaulting  collector  is  to  be  suspended  or  removed,  does  not 
involve  the  execution  of  the  great  powers  of  the  government.  It  may  be  car- 
ried on ;  he  may  be  of  opinion  with  less  advantage ;  he  may  be  of  opinion  not 
in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  Constitution,  but  it  may  be  carried 
on  without  serious  embanassmeat  or  difficulty.  Until  that  question  is  settled 
he  does  not  find  it  necessary  to  make  it — settled  in  some  way,  by  some  person 
who  has  an  interest  to  raise  and  have  it  settled. 

I  wish  to  observe,  also,  (the  correctness  of  which  observation  I  think  the 
Senate  will  agree  with,)  that  these  changes  which  have  been  made  in  the  forms 
of  the  commissions  really  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  subject ;  for  instance, 
the  change  is  made  in  the  Department  of  State,  "  subject  to  the  conditions  pre- 
scribed by  law."  That  is  the  tenure  on  which  I  think  all  commissions  should 
originally  have  run,  and  ought  to  continue  to  run.  It  is  general  enough  to  em- 
brace all.  If  it  is  a  condition  prescribed  by  law  that  the  Senate  must  consent 
to  the  removal  of  the  incumbent  before  he  is  rightfully  out  of  office,  it  covers 
that  case.  If  the  tenure-of-office  bill  be  not  a  law  of  the  land  because  it  is  not 
in  accordance  with  tiie  Constitution,  it  covers  that  case.  It  covers  every  case 
necessarily  from  its  terms,  for  every  officer  does,  and  should,  and  must  hold 
subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law — nSt  necessarily  a  law  of  Congress 
but  a  law  of  the  land — the  Constitution  being  supreme  in  that  particular. 

There  is  anotlier  observation,  also,  and  tliat  is,  that  the  change  that  was  made 
in  the  Department  of  the  Treasury — "until  a  successor  be  appointed  and  quali- 
fied"— has  manifestly  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  subject  of  removal. 
Whether  the  power  of  removal  be  vested  in  the  ]*resident  alone,  or  vested  in  the 
President  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  this  clause  does 
not  touch  it.  It  is  just  as  inconsistent  with  removal  by  the  President  with  the 
consent  of  the  Senate  as  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  removal  by  the  President 
alone.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  general  tenure  of  the  otiice  which  is  described, 
according  to  which  the  officer  is  to  continue  to  hold ;  but  he  and  all  other  offi- 
cers hold  subject  to  some  power  of  removal  vested  somewhere,  and  this  change 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  397 

which  has  been  made  in  the  commission  does  not  declare  where  it  is  vested,  nor 
has  it  any  influence  on  the  question  in  whom  it  is  vested. 

I  wish  to  add  to  this,  that  there  is  nothing,  so  far  as  I  see,  on  this  subject  of 
estoppel,  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the  President,  either  in  sending  the  mes- 
sage to  the  Senate  of  the  12th  of  December,  or  in  the  changes  in  the  commis- 
sions, or  in  his  sending  to  the  Senate  notices  of  suspensions  of  different  officers, 
which  has  any  bearing  M'hatever  upon  the  tenure-of-office  act  as  affecting  the 
case  of  Mr.  Stanton.  That  is  a  case  that  stands  by  itself.  The  law  may  be  a 
constitutional  law;  it  may  not  only  be  a  law  under  which  the  President  has 
acted  in  this  instance,  but  under  which  he  is  bound  to  act,  and  is  willing  to  act, 
if  you  please,  in  every  instance;  still,  if  Mr.  Stanton  is  not  within  that  law,  the 
case  remains  as  it  was  originally  presented,  and  that  case  is,  that,  not  being 
within  that  law,  the  first  article  is  entirely  without  foundation. 

I  now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  have  arrived  at  a  point  in  my  argument  when,  if  it 
be  within  the  pleasure  of  the  Senate  to  allow  me  to  suspend  it,  it  will  be  a  boon 
to  me  to  do  so.  I  am  unaccustomed  to  speak  in  so  large  a  room,  and  it  is 
fatiguing  to  me.  Still,  I  would  not  trespass  at  all  upon  the  wishes  of  the  Sen- 
ate if  they  desire  me  to  proceed  further. 

Mr.  JoH.\so.\.  I  move  that  the  court  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ;  and  the  Senate,  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  im- 
peachment, adjourned. 


Friday,  Ajvil  10,  1868 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at  12 
o'clock  and  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  a! so  appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  headed  by  Mr.  E.  B. 
Washburne,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker 
and  Clerk,  entered  the  Senate  chamber,  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  pro- 
vided for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  minutes  of  the  last  day's 
proceedings. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  of  the  Senate 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators  will  please  to  give  their  attention.  The  coun- 
sel for  the  President  will  proceed  with  the  argument. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  among  the  points  which  I  acci- 
dentally omitted  to  notice  yesterday  was  one  which  seems  to  me  of  sufficient 
importance  to  return,  and  for  a  few  moments  to  ask  the  attention  of  the  Senate, 
to  it.  It  will  best  be  exhibited  by  reading  from  Saturday's  proceedings  a  short 
passage.     In  the  course  of  those  proceedings  Mr.  Manager  Butler  said : 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  says  in  his  answer  that  he  suspended  Mr.  Stanton  under  the  Constitution,  indefinitely 
and  at  his  pleasure.  I  propose,  now.  unless  it  be  objected  to,  to  show  that  that  is  false  under 
his  own  hand,  and  I  have  his  letter  to  that  effect,  which,  if  there  is  no  objection,  1  wilhead, 
the  signa;ture  of  which  was  identified  by  C.  E.  Creecy. 

Then  followed  the  reading  of  the  letter,  Avhich  was  this : 

Executive  Mansion, 
Washington,  D.  C,  August  11,  1867. 
Sir:  In  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of  Congress  of 
March  2,  1^67,  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  you  are  hereby 


398  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

notified  that  on  tlie  12th  instant,  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  was  suspended  from  office  as  Sec- 
retary of  War,  and  General  Ulysses  S.  Grant  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secretary 
of  War  ad  interim. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

This  is  the  letter  which  was  to  show,  unrler  tlie  hand  of  the  President,  that 
when  he  said  in  his  answer  he  did  not  suspend  Mr.  Stanton  by  virtue  of  the 
tenure-of-ofiice  act,  that  statement  was  a  falsehood.  Allow  me  now  to  read  the 
eighth  section  of  that  act  : 

That  whenever  the  President  shall,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  desig- 
nate, authorize,  or  employ  any  person  to  perform  the  duties  of  any  ofKce,  he  shall  forthwith 
notify  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  thereof;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  thereupon  to  communicate  such  notice  to  all  the  proper  accounting  and  disbursing 
officers  of  his  department. 

The  Senate  will  perceive  that  this  section  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  suspen- 
sion of  an  ofiicer,  and  no  description  of  what  suspensions  are  to  take  place;  but 
the  purpose  of  the  section  is  that  if  in  any  case  the  President,  without  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  shall,  under  any  circumstances,  designate  a 
third  person  to  perform  temporarily  the  duties  of  an  office,  he  is  to  make  a  report 
of  that  designation  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  that  officer  is  to  give 
the  necessary  information  of  the  event  to  his  subordinate  officers.  The  section 
applies  in  terms  to  and  includes  all  cases.  It  applies  to  and  includes  cases  of 
designation  on  account  of  sickness,  or  absence  or  resignation,  ov  any  cause  of 
vacancy,  whether  temporary  or  permanent,  and  whether  occurring  by  reason  of 
a  suspension  or  of  a  removal  from  office ;  and,  therefore,  when  the  President 
says  to  theSecretary  of  the  Treasury,  "I  give  you  notice  that  I  have  designated 
General  Grant  to  perform  the  duties  ad  interim  of  Secretary  of  War,"  he 
makes  no  allusion,  by  force  of  that  letter,  to  the  manner  in  which  that  vacancy 
has  occurred,  or  the  authority  by  which  it  has  been  created  ;  and  hence,  instead 
of  this  letter  showing,  under  the  President's  own  hand,  that  he  had  stated  a 
falsehood,  it  has  no  reference  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  power  or  the  occasion 
of  Mr.  Stanton's  removal. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,   Read  the  second  section,  please;  the  first  clause  of  it. 

Mr.  CuRTl.s.  "What  did  the  manager  call  for  ? 

]Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Read  the  first  clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  act, 
which  says  that  in  no  other  case  except  when  he  suspends  shall  he  appoint. 

Ml-.  Curtis.  The  second  section  provides  : 

That  when  any  officer  appointed  as  aforesaid,  excepting  judges  of  the  United  States 
courts,  shall,  during  a  recess  of  the  Senate,  be  shown  by  satisfactory  evidence,    &c. 

The  President  is  allowed  to  suspend  such  an  officer.  Now,  the  President 
states  in  his  answer  that  he  did  not  act  under  that  section. 

Mr.  Manager  Buti,i;r.  That  is  not  reading  the  section.  That  is  not  what  I 
desired. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  am  aware  that  is  not  reading  the  section,  j\[r.  ^lanager.  You 
need  not  point  that  out.     It  is  a  very  long  section,  and  I  do  not  propose  to  read  it. 

Mr.  iVIanager  Bu'ILER.  The  first  half  a  dozen  lines. 

Mr.  Curtis.  This  second  section  authorizes  the  President  to  suspend  in  cases  of 
crime  and  other  cases  which  are  described  in  this  section.  By  force  of  it  the  Presi- 
dent may  suspend  an  oflicer.  (,This  eiglith  section  applies  to  all  cases  of  temporary 
designations  and  appointments,  whether  resulting  from  suspensions  under  the 
second  section,  or  whetlnn"  arising  from  temporary  absence,  or  sickness,  or  death, 
or  resignation  ;  no  matter  what  the  cause  may  be,  if  for  any  reason  there  is  a 
temporary  designation  of  a  person  to  supply  an  oiHce  ad  interim,  notice  is  to  be 
given  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  and  therefore  I  repeat,  senators,  that 
the  subject-matter  of  this  eiglith  section,  and  the  letter  which  the  President  wrote 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  6\)d 

in  conPcqiiencG  of  it,  have  uo  reference  to  tlic  question  under  what  authority  he 
suspended  Mr.  Stanton. 

I  now  ask  tlie  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  second  article  in  the  series  ;  and 
I  will  begin  as  I  began  before,  by  stating  what  the  substance  of  this  article  is, 
what  allegation  its  makes,  so  as  to  be  the  subjects  of  proof,  and  then  the  Senate 
will  be  prepared  to  see  how  far  each' one  of  these  allegations  is  supported  by 
Avhat  is  already  in  the  case,  and  I  shall  be  enabled  to  state  what  we  propose  to 
oiler  by  way  of  proof  in  respect  to  each  of  them.  The  substantive  allegations 
of  this  second  article  are  that  the  delivery  of  the  letter  of  authority  to  General 
Thomas  Avas  without  authority  of  law;  that  it  was  an  intentional  violation  of 
the  tenure- of-office  act ;  that  it  was  an  intentional  violation  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States ;  that  the  delivery  of  this  order  to  General  Thomas  was 
made  with  intent  to  violate  both  the  act  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  That  is  the  substance  of  the  second  article.  The  Senate  will  at  once 
perceive  that  if  the  suspension  of  Mr.  Stanton  was  not  a  violation  of  the  tenure- 
of-office  act  in  point  of  fact,  or,  to  state  it  in  other  terms,  if  the  case  of  Mr. 
Stanton  is  not  within  the  act,  then  his  removal,  if  he  had  been  removed,  could 
not  be  a  violation  of  the  act. 

If  his  case  is  not  within  the  act  at  all,  if  the  act  does  not  apply  to  the  case 
of  Mr.  Stanton,  of  course  his  removal  is  not  a  violation  of  that  act.  If  Mr. 
Stanton  continued  to  hold  under  the  commission  which  he  received  from  Presi- 
dent Lincoln,  and  his  tenure  continued  to  be  under  the  act  of  17S9,  and  under 
his  only  commission,  which  was  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  it  was  no  vio- 
lation of  the  tenure-of-office  act  for  Mr.  Johnson  to  remove,  or  attempt  to  remove, 
Mr.  Stanton  ;  and  thei-efore  the  Senate  will  perceive  that  it  is  necessary  to  come 
back  again,  to  recur  under  this  article,  as  it  will  be  necessary  to  recur  under  the 
Avholi^  of  the  first  eight  articles,  to  the  inquiries,  first,  whether  Mr.  Stanton's 
case  was  Avithin  the  tenure-of-office  act ;  and  secondly,  whether  it  was  so  clearly 
and  plainly  within  that  act  that  it  can  be  attributed  to  the  President  as  a 
high  misdemeanor  that  he  construed  it  not  to  include  his  case.  But  suppose  the 
case  of  Mr.  Stanton  is  within  the  tenure-of-office  act,  still  the  inquiry  arises 
whether  what  was  done  in  delivering  this  letter  of  authority  to  General  Thomas 
was  a  violation  of  that  act ;  and  that  renders  it  necessary  that  I  should  ask 
your  careful  attention  to  the  general  subjects-matter  of  this  act,  and  the  par- 
ticular provisions  which  are  inserted  in  it  in  reference  to  each  of  those  subjects. 

Senators  will  recollect  undoubtedly  that  this  law,  as  it  was  finally  passed, 
differs  from  the  bill  as  it  was  originally  introduced.  The  law  relates  to  two 
distinct  subjects.  One  is  removal  from  office  ;  the  other  subject  is  appointments 
of  a  certain  character  made  under  certain  circumstances  to  fill  offices.  It  seems 
that  a  practice  had  grown  up  under  the  government  th;^t  where  a  person  was 
nominated  to  the  Senate  to  fill  an  office,  and  tiie  Senate  either  did  not  act  on 
his  nomination  during  their  session  or  rejected  the  nomination,  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Senate  and  in  the  recess  it  was  considered  competent  for  the  Presi- 
dent by  a  tempoi'ary  commission  to  appoint  that  same  person  to  that  same 
office ;  and  that  was  deemed  by  many  senators,  unquestionably  by  a  majority, 
and  I  should  judge  from  reading  the  debates  by  a  large  majority  of  the  Senate, 
to  be  an  abuse  of  power — not  an  intentional  abuse.  But  it  was  a  practice  which 
had  prevailed  under  the  government  to  a  very  considerable  extent.  It  was  not 
limited  to  very  recent  times.  It  had  been  supported  by  the  opinions  of  differ- 
ent Attorneys  General  given  to  different  Presidents.  But  still  it  was  consid- 
ered by  many  senators  to  be  a  departure  from  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution, 
and  a  substantial  derogation  from  the  just  power  of  the  Senate  in  respect  to 
nominations  for  office.  That  being  so,  it  will  be  found  on  an  examination  of 
this  law  that  the  first  and  second  sections  of  the  act  relate  exclusively  to 
removals  from  office  and  temporary  suspensions  in  the  recess  of  the  Senate ; 
while  the  third  section  and  several  of  the  follo^ving  sections,  to  which  I   shall 


400  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

ask  your  particular  attention,  relate  exclusively  to  this  other  subject  of  appoint- 
ments made  to  office  after  the  Senate  had  refused  to  concur  in  the  nomination  of 
the  person  appointed.     Allow  me  uow,  to  read  from  the  third  section  : 

That  the  President  sliall  have  power  to  fill  all  vacancies  which  may  happen  during  the 
recess  of  tlie  Senate,  by  reason  of  death  or  resignation — 

I  pause  here  to  remark  that  this  does  not  include  all  cases.  It  does  not  include 
any  case  of  the  expiration  of  a  commission.  It  includes  simply  death  and  resig- 
nation, not  cases  of  the  expiration  of  a  commission  during  the  recess  of  the 
Senate.  Vfhy  these  were  thus  omitted  I  do  not  know ;  but  it  is  manifest  that 
the  law  does  not  affect  to,  and  in  point  of  fact  does  not,  cover  all  cases  which 
might  arise  belonging  to  this  general  class  to  which  this  section  was  designed  to 
refer. 

The  law  goes  on  to  say — 

That  the  President  shall  have  power  to  fill  all  vacancies  which  may  happen  during  the 
recess  of  the  Senate,  by  reason  of  death  or  resignation,  by  granting  conmiissions  which  shall 
expire  at  the  end  of  their  next  session  thereafter.  And  if  no  appointment,  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  shall  be  made  to  silch  office  so  vacant  or  temporarily  filled 
as  aforesaid  during  such  next  session  of  the  Senate,  such  office  shall  remain  in  abeyance, 
without  any  salary,  fees,  or  emoluments  attached  thereto,  until  the  same  shall  be  tilled  by 
appointment  thereto,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  ;  and  during  such 
time  all  the  powers  and  duties  belonging  to  such  office  shall  be  exercised  by  siich  other  offi- 
cer as  may  by  law  exercise  such  powers  and  duties  in  case  of  a  vacancy  in  such  office. 

Here  all  the  described  vacancies  in  ol'iice  occurring  during  the  recess  of  the 
Senate  and  the  failure  to  fill  those  vacancies  in  accordance  with  the  advice  of 
the  Senate  are  treated  as  occasioning  an  abeyance  of  such  ofhces.  That  applies, 
as  I  have  said,  to  two  classes  of  cases,  vacancies  happening  by  reason  of  death 
or  resignation.     It  does  not  apply  to  any  other  vacancies. 

The  next  section  of  this^law  does  not  relate  to  this  subject  of  filling  offices, 
but  to  the  subject  of  removals  : 

That  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  to  extend  the  term  of  any  office  the 
duration  of  which  is  limited  by  law. 

The  fifth  section  is  : 

That  if  any  person  shall,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  accept  any  appointment  to 
or  employment  in  any  office,  or  shall  hold  or  exercise,  or  attempt  to  hold  or  exercise,  any  such 
office  or  employment,  he  shall  be  deemed,  and  is  hereby  declared  to  be,  guilty  of  a  high  mis- 
demeanor, and,  upon  trial  and  conviction  thereof,  he  shall  be  punished  therefor  by  a  tine  not 
exceeding  .'|10,0(JU,  or  by  imprisonment,  &c. 

Any  person  who  shall,  "  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,"  accept  any 
appointment.  What  are  the  "provisions  of  this  act"  in  respect  to  accepting 
any  appointment  1  They  are  found  in  the  third  section  of  the  act  putting  cer- 
tain offices  in  abeyance  under  the  circumstances  which  are  described  in  that  sec- 
tion. If  any  person  does  accept  an  office  which  is  thus  put  into  abeyance,  or 
any  employment  or  authority  in  respect  to  such  office,  he  comes  within  the  penal 
provisions  of  the  fifth  section  ;  but  outside  of  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
accepting  an  office  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  act,  because  the  provisions 
of  the  act;  in  respect  to  filling  offices,  extend  no  further  than  to  these  cases  ; 
and  80,  in  the  next  section  it  is  declared  : 

That  every  removal,  appointment,  or  onij)loyment  made,  had,  or  exercised,  contrary  to 
the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  the  making,  signing,  sealing,  countersigning,  or  issuing  of 
any  commission  or  h'tter  of  authority  for  or  in  resjject  to  any  such  appointment  or  employ 
ment,  shall  be  deemed,  and  arc  hereby  declared  to  be,  liigh  misdemeanors,  tfcc. 

Here,  again,  the  making  of  a  letter  of  authority  contrary  to  the  provisions  of 
the  act,  can  refer  only  to  those  cases  which  the  act  itself  has  described,  which 
the  act  itself  has  prohibited ;  and  any  other  cases  which  are  outside  of  such 
projiibition,  as  this  case  manifestly  is,  do  not  come  within  its  provisions. 

The  stress  of  this  article,  however,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  depend  at  all  upon 
this  question  of  the  construction  of  this  law,  but  upon  a  totally  different  matter, 
which  I  agree  should  be  fairly  and  carefully  considered.     The  important  allega- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE  PRESIDENT.  401 

tion  of  the  article  is  that  this  letter  of  authority  was  »iven  to  G-encral  Thomas 
enabling  him  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  inteiim  without 
authority  of  law  ;  that  I  conceive  to  be  the  main  inquiry  which  ai'ises  under 
this  article,  provided  the  case  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  his  removal  are  within  the 
tenui-e-of-office  bill  at  all. 

I  wish  first  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate  the  act  of  1795,  which  is 
found  in  1  Statutes  at  Large,  page  415.  It  is  a  short  act,  and  I  will  read  the 
whole  of  it : 

That  in  case  of  vacancy  in  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  Secretary  of  tlie  Treasury, 
or  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Department  of  War,  or  of  any  officer  of  either  of  the  said  depart- 
ments, whose  appointment  is  not  in  the  liead  thereof,  Whereby  they  cannot  perform  the  duties 
of  their  said  respective  offices,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in 
case  he  shall  think  it  necessary,  to  authorize  any  person  or  persons,  at  his  discretion,  to  per- 
form tlie  duties  of  the  said  respective  offices  until  a  successor  be  appointed  or  such,  vacancies 
be  filled:  Provided,  That  no  one  vacancy  shall  be  supplied,  in  manner  aforesaid,  for  a 
longer  term  than  six  months. 

This  act,  it  has  been  suggested,  may  h;ive  been  repealed  by  the  act  of  Feb- 
ruary 20,  1863,  which  is  found  in  12  Statutes  at  Large,  page  656.  This  also 
is  a  short  act,  and  I  will  trespass  on  the  patience  of  the  Senate  by  reading  it : 

That  in  case  of  the  death,  resignation,  absence  from  the  seat  of  government,  or  sickness 
of  the  head  of  any  executive  department  of  the  government,  or  of  any  officer  of  either  of  the 
said  departments  whose  appointment  is  not  in  the  head  thereof,  whereby  they  cannot  perform 
the  duties  of  their  respective  offices,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
in  case  he  shall  think  it  necessary,  to  authorize  the  head  of  any  other  executive  department, 
or  other  officer  in  either  of  said  departments  whose  appointment  is  vested  in  the  President, 
at  his  discretion,  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  said  respective  offices  until  a  successor  be 
appointed,  or  until  such  absence  or  inability  by  sickness  shall  cease:  Provided,  That  no  one 
vacancy  shall  be  supplied  in  manner  aforesaid  for  a  longer  term  than  six  months. 

These  acts,  as  the  Senate  will  perceive,  although  they  may  be  said  in  some 
sense  to  relate  to  the  same  general  subject-matter,  contain  very  different  pro- 
visions, and  the  later  law  contains  no  express  repeal  of  the  other.  If,  therefore, 
the  later  law  operates  as  a  repeal,  it  is  only  as  a  repeal  by  implication.  It  says 
in  terms  that  "all  acts  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  with  this  act  are  hereby 
repealed."  That  a  general  principle  of  law  would  say  if  the  statute  did  not 
speak  those  words.  The  addition  of  those  words  adds  nothing  to  its  repealing 
power.  The  same  inquiry  arises  under  them  that  would  arise  if  they  did  not 
exist,  namely,  how  far  is  this  later  law  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  the 
earlier  law  ? 

There  are  certain  rules  which  I  shall  not  fatigue  the  Senate  by  citing  cases 
to  prove  because  every  lawyer  will  recognize  them  as  settled  rules  upon  this 
subject. 

In  the  first  place  there  is  a  rule  that  repeals  by  implication  are  not  favored 
by  the  courts.  Tliis  is,  as  I  understand  it,  because  the  courts  act  on  the 
assumption  or  the  principle  that  if  the  legislature  really  intended  to  repeal  the 
law  they  would  have  said  so ;  not  that  they  necessarily  must  say  so,  because 
there  are  repeals  by  implication;  but  the  presumption  is  that  if  the  legislature 
entertained  a  clear  and  fixed  purpose  to  repeal  a  former  law,  they  would  be 
likely  at  least  to  have  said  so  ;  and,  therefore,  the  rule  is  a  settled  one  that 
repeals  by  implication  are  not  favored  by  the  courts.  Another  rule  is  that  the 
repugnancy  between  the  two  statutes  must  be  clear.  It  is  not  enough  that 
under  some  circumstances  one  may  possibly  be  repugnant  to  the  other.  The 
repugnancy,  as  the  language  of  the  books  is,  between  the  two  must  be  clear, 
and  if  the  two  laws  can  stand  together  the  latter  does  not  impliedly  repeal  the 
former  If  senators  have  any  desire  to  recur  to  the  authorities  on  this  subject, 
they  will  find  a  sufficient  number  of  them  collected  in  Sedgwick  on  Statute 
Law,  page  126. 

Now,  there  is  no  repugnancy  whatsoever  between  those  two  laws,  that  I  can 
perceive.  The  act  of  1795  applies  to  all  vacancies,  however  created.  The  act 
26  1  P 


402  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

of  1863  applies  only  to  vacancies,  temporary  or  otherwise,  occasioned  by  death 
and  resignation ;  removals  from  office,  expii*ation  of  commissions,  are  not 
included.  The  act  of  1795  applies  only  to  vacancies;  the  act  of  1863  to  tem- 
porary absences  or  sickness.  The  subject-matter,  therefore,  of  the  laws  is  dif- 
ferent ;  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  them ;  each  may  stand  together  and 
operate  upon  the  cases  to  which  each  applies  ;  and  therefore  I  submit  that,  in 
the  strictest  view  which  may  ultimately  be  taken  of  this  subject,  it  is  not  prac- 
ticable to  miiiutaiu  that  the  later  law  repealed  altogether  the  act  of  1795. 
But  whether  it  did  or  not,  I  state  again  what  I  have  had  so  often  occasion  to 
repeat  before  ;  is  it  not  a  fair  question  1  is  it  a  crime  to  be  on  one  side  of  that 
question  and  not  on  the  other  ?  Is  it  a  high  misdemeanor  to  believe  that  a  cer- 
tain view  taken  of  the  repeal  of  this  earlier  I.iw  by  the  later  one  is  a  sound 
view  ?  I  submit  that  that  would  be  altogether  too  stringent  a  rule,  even  for 
the  honorable  managers  themselves  to  contend  for ;  and  they  do  not,  and  the 
House  of  Representatives  does  not,  contend  for  any  such  rule.  Their  article 
alleges  as  matter  of  fact  that  there  was  a  wilful  intention  on  the  part  of  the 
President  to  issue  this  letter  to  General  Thomas  without  authority  of  law  ;  not 
on  mistaken  judgment,  not  upon  an  opinion  which,  after  due  consideration, 
lawyers  might  differ  about ;  but  by  reason  of  a  wilful  intention  to  act  without 
authority  ;  and  that,  I  submit,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  cannot  be  made  out. 

The  next  allegation  in  this  article  to  which  I  desire  to  invite  the  attention  of 
the  Senate  is,  that  the  giving  of  this  letter  to  General  Thomas  during  the  ses- 
sion of  the  Senate  was  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
That  will  require  your  attentive  consideration.  The  Constitution,  as  you  are 
well  aware,  has  provided  for  two  modes  of  filling  offices.  The  one  is  by  tem- 
porary commissions,  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  when  the  vacancy  hap- 
pens in  the  recess  ;  the  other  is  by  appointment  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate,  followed  by  a  commission  from  the  President ;  but  it  very  early  be- 
came apparent  to  those  who  administered  the  government  that  cases  must  occur 
to  which  neither  of  those  modes  dictated  by  the  Constitution  would  be  applica- 
ble, but  which  must  be  provided  lor:  cases  of  temporary  absence  of  the  hend 
of  a  department  the  business  of  which,  especially  during  the  session  of  Con- 
gress, must,  for  the  public  interest,  continue  to  be  administered  ;  cases  of  sick- 
ness; cases  of  resignation  or  removal,  for  the  power  of  removal,  at  any  rate  in 
that  day,  was  held  to  be  in  the  President;  cases  of  resignation  or  removal  in 
reference  to  which  the  President  was  not,  owing  to  the  suddenness  of  the  occur- 
rence, in  a  condition  immediately  to  make  a  nomination  to  fill  the  office,  or  even 
to  issue  a  commission  to  fill  the  office,  if  such  vacancy  occurred  in  vacation  ;  and 
therefore  it  became  necessary  by  legislation  to  supply  these  administrative  defects 
which  existed  and  were  not  provided  for  by  the  Constitution.  And  accordingly, 
beginning  in  1792,  there  will  be  found  to  be  a  series  of  acts  on  this  subject  of 
filling  vacancies  by  temporary  or  ad  interim  authority;  not  appointments,  not 
filling  vacancies  in  ofiices  by  a  commission  in  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  nor  by  a 
commission  signed  by  the  President  in  consequence  of  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate,  but  a  mode  of  designating  a  particular  person  to  perform  tem- 
porarily the  duties  of  some  particular  office,  which  otherwise,  before  the  office 
can  be  filled  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution,  would  remain  unperformed. 
These  acts  are  one  of  May  8,  1792,  section  8,  (1  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  281  ;) 
February  17,  1795,  (1  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  415;)  and  last,  in  February  20, 
1863,  (12  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  656.) 

The  ^Senate  will  observe  what  particular  difficulty  these  laws  were  designed 
to  meet.  This  difficulty  was  the  occurrence  of  some  sudden  vacancy  in  office 
or  some  sudden  inability  to  perform  the  duties  of  an  office;  and  the  intention  of 
each  of  these  laws  was,  each  being  ai)[)lied  to  some  particular  class  of  cases,  to 
make  provision  that  notwithstanding  there  was  a  vacancy  in  the  office,  or  not- 
wilhatuudiiig  there  was  a  temporary  disability  in  the  officer  without  a  vacancy, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  403 

still  the  duties  of  the  office  should  be  temporarily  discharged.  That  was  the 
purpose  of  these  laws.  It  is  entirely  evident  that  these  temporary  vacancies 
are  just  as  liable  to  occur  during  the  session  of  the  Senate  as  during  the  recess 
of  the  Senate;  that  it  is  just  as  necessary  to  have  a  set  of  legislative  provisions 
to  enable  the  President  to  carry  on  the  public  service  in  case  of  these  vacancies 
and  inabilities  during  the  session  of  the  Senate  as  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate ; 
and,  accordingly,  it  will  be  found,  by  looking  into  these  laws,  that  they  make 
no  distinction  between  the  sessions  of  the  Senate  and  the  recesses  of  the  Senate 
in  reference  to  these  temporary  authorities.  "  Whenever  a  vacancy  shall  occur" 
is  the  language  of  the  law — "  whenever  there  shall  be  a  death  or  a  resignation 
or  an  absence  or  a  sickness."  The  law  applies  when  the  event  occurs  that  the 
law  contemplates  as  an  emergency  ;  and  the  particular  time  when  it  occurs  is  of 
no  consequence  in  itself,  and  is  deemed  by  the  law  of  no  consequence.  In 
accordance  with  this  view,  senators,  has  been  the  uniform  and  settled  and  fre- 
quent practice  of  the  government  from  its  very  earliest  date,  as  I  am  instructed 
we  shall  prove,  not  in  any  one  or  two  or  few  instances,  but  in  great  numbers  of 
instances.  That  has  been  the  practical  construction  put  upon  tliese  laws  from 
the  time  when  the  earliest  law  was  passed  in  1792,  and  it  has  continued  down 
to  this  day. 

The  honorable  managers  themselves  read  a  list  a  few  days  since  of  temporary 
appointments  during  the  session  of  the  Senate  of  heads  of  departments,  which 
amounted  in  number,  if  I  counted  them  accurately,  to  upward  of  thirty ;  and 
if  you  add  to  these  the  cases  of  officers  below  the  heads  of  departments,  the 
number  will  be  found,  of  course,  to  be  much  increased ;  and,  in  the  course  of 
exhibiting  this  evidence,  it  will  be  found  that,  although  the  instances  are  not 
numerous,  for  they  are  not  very  likely  to  occur  in  practice,  yet  instances  have 
occurred  on  all  fours  with  the  one  'which  is  now  before  the  Senate  where  there 
has  been  a  removal  or  a  suspension  of  an  officer,  sometimes  one  and  sometimes 
the  other,  and  the  designation  of  a  person  has  been  made  at  the  same  time  tem- 
porarily to  discharge  the  duties  of  that  office. 

The  Senate  will  see  that  in  practice  such  things  must  naturally  occur.  Take 
the  case,  for  instance,  of  Mr.  Floyd,  which  I  alluded  to  yesterday.  Mr.  Floyd 
went  out  of  office.  His  chief  clerk  was  a  person  believed  to  be  in  sympathy 
with  him  and  under  his  control.  If  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  1789  was 
allowed  to  operate,  the  control  of  the  office  went  into  the  hands  of  that  clerk. 
The  Senate  was  in  session.  The  public  safety  did  not  permit  the  War  Depart- 
ment to  be  left  in  that  predicament  for  one  hour,  if  it  could  be  avoided,  and 
President  Buchanan  sent  down  to  the  Post  Office  Department  and  brought  the 
Postmaster  General  to  the  War  Department,  and  put  it  in  his  cliarge.  There 
was  then  in  this  body  a  sufficient  number  of  persons  to  look  after  that  matter. 
They  felt  an  interest  in  it,  and  consequently  they  passed  a  resolve  inquiring  of 
President  Buchanan  by  what  authority  he  had  made  an  appointment  of  a  per- 
son to  take  charge  of  the  War  Department  without  their  consent,  without  a 
nomination  to  them,  and  their  advising;  and  consentino^  to  it,  to  which  a  messaore 
was  sent  in  answer  containing  the  facts  on  this  subject,  and  showing  to  the  Sen- 
ate of  that  day  the  propriety,  the  necessity,  and  the  long-continued  practice 
under  which  this  authority  was  exercised  by  him,  and  giving  a  schedule  running 
through  the  time  of  General  Jackson  and  his  two  immediate  successors,  I  think, 
showing  great  numbers  of  ad  interim  appointments  of  this  character,  and  to 
those,  as  I  have  said,  we  shall  add  a  very  considerable  number  of  others. 

I  submit,  then,  that  there  can  be  no  ground  whatever  for  the  allegation  that 
this  ad  interim  appointment  was  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.     The  h^gislation  of  Congress  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  that  charge. 

I  pass,  therefore,  to  the  next  article  which  I  wish  to  consider,  and  that  is  not 
the  next  in  number,  but  the  eight!  i  ;  and  I  take  it  in  this  order  because  the 
eighth  article,  as  I  have  analyzed  it,  differs  from  the  second  only  in  one  particu- 


404  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

lar;  and  therefore,  taking  that  in  connection  with  the  second,  of  which  I  have 
just  been  speaking,  it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to  say  but  a  very  few  words  con- 
cerning it.  ' 

It  charges  an  attempt  unlawfully  to  control  the  approprialions  made  by  Con- 
gress for  the  military  service,  and  that  is  all  there  is  in  it  except  what  there  is 
in  the  second  article. 

Upon  that,  certainly,  at  this  stage  of  the  case,  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to 
make  any  observations.  The  Senate  will  remember  the  offer  of  proof  on  the 
part  of  the  managers  designed,  as  was  stated,  to  connect  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  through  his  private  secretary,  with  the  treasmy,  and  thus  enable 
him  to  use  unlawfully  appropriations  made  for  the  military  service.  The  Senate 
will  recollect  the  fate  of  that  offer,  and  that  the  evidence  was  not  n^ceived  ;  and 
therefore  it  seems  to  me  quite  unnecessary  for  me  to  pause  to  comment  any 
farther  upon  this  eighth  article. 

I  advance  to  the  third  article,  and  here  the  allegations  are  that  the  President 
appointed  Geuei'al  Thomas ;  second,  that  he  did  this  without  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Sentate  ;  third,  that  he  did  it  when  no  vacancy  had  happened  in 
the  recess  of  the  Senate*;  fourth,  that  he  did  it  when  there  was  no  vacancy  at 
the  time  of  the  appointment ;  and  fifth,  that  he  committed  a  high  misdemeanor 
by  thus  intentionally  violating  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

I  desire  to  say  a  word  or  two  upon  each  of  these  points ;  and  first  we  deny 
that  he  ever  appointed  General  Thomas  to  an  office.  An  appointment  can  be 
made  to  an  office  only  by  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  through  a 
commission  signed  by  the  President,  and  bearing  the  great  seal  of  the  govern- 
ment. That  is  the  only  mode  in  which  an  appointment  can  be  made.  The 
President,  as  I  have  said,  may  temporarily  commission  officers  when  vacancies 
occur  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate.  That  is  not  an  appointment.  It  is  not 
80  termed  in  the  Constitution.  A  clear  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  two. 
The  President  also  may,  under  the  acts  of  1795  and  1863,  designate  persons 
who  shall  temporarily  exercise  the  authority  and  perform  the  duties  of  a  certain 
office  when  there  is  a  vacancy  ;  but  that  is  not  an  appointment.  The  office  is 
not  filled  by  such  a  designation.  Now,  all  which  the  President  did  was  to  issue 
a  letter  of  authority  to  General  Thomas,  authorizing  him  ad  interim  to  perform 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War.     In  no  sense  was  this  an  appointment. 

It  is  said  it  was  made  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  Cer- 
tainly it  was.  How  can  tlie  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  be  obtained  to  an 
ad  interim  authority  of  this  kind  under  any  of  these  acts  of  Congress  ?  It  is 
not  an  appointment  that  is  in  view.  It  is  to  supply  temporarily  a  defect  in  the 
administrative  machinery  of  the  government.  If  he  had  gone  to  the  Senate  for 
their  advice  and  consent,  he  must  have  gone  on  a  nomination  made  by  him  of 
General  Thomas  to  this  office,  a  thing  he  never  intended  to  do,  and  never  made 
any  attempt  to  carry  into  effect. 

It  is  said  no  vacancy  happened  in  the  recess.  That  I  have  already  consid- 
ered. Temporary  ajjpointments  are  not  limited  to  the  temporary  supply  of 
vacancies  haj)pening  in  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  as  I  have  already  endeavored 
to  show. 

It  is  said  there  was  no  vncancy  at  the  time  the  act  was  done.  That  is  beg- 
ging the  question.  If  Mr.  Stanton's  case  was  not  within  the  tenured-office  act, 
if,  as  I  have  so  often  repeated,  he  held  under  th(>  act  of  1789,  and  at  the  })li'a8ure 
of  th(!  President,  the  moment  he  received  that  order  which  General  Thomas  car- 
ried to  him  there  was  a  vacancy  in  point  of  law,  however  he  may  have  refused 
to  perform  his  duty  and  prevented  a  vacancy  from  occurring  in  point  of  fact. 
But  the  Senate  will  perceive  these  two  letters  were  to  be  del  vered  to  Gen- 
eral Tl  onias  at  the  same  time.  One  of  them  is  an  order  to  Mr.  Stanton  to 
vacate  ihe  office  ;  the  other  is  a  direction  to  General  Thomas  to  take  possession 
when  Mr.  Slautou  obeys  the  order  thus  given.     Now,  may  not  tiie  President  of 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  405 

the  United  States  issue  a  letter  of  authority  in  contemplation  that  a  vacancy  is 
about  to  occur  1  Is  he  bound  to  take  a  technical  view  of  this  subject,  and  have 
the  order  creating  the  vacancy  first  sent  and  delivered,  and  then  sit  down  at  his 
table  and  sign  the  letter  of  authority  afterward  ?  If  he  expects  a  vacancy,  if 
he  has  done  an  act  which  in  bis  judgment  is  sufficient  to  create  a  vacancy,  may 
he  not,  in  contemplation  that  that  vacancy  is  to  happen,  sign  the  necessary 
paper  to  give  the  temporary  authority  to  carry  on  the  duties  of  the  office  ? 

Last  of  all,  it  is  said  he  committed  a  high  misdemeanor  by  intentionally  vio- 
lating the  C'onstitution  of  the  United  States  when  he  gave  General  Thomas  this 
letter  of  authority.  If  I  have  been  successful  in  the  argument  I  have  already 
addressed  to  you  you  will  be  of  opinion  that  in  point  of  fact  there  was  no  vio- 
lation of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  by  delivering  this  letter  of 
authority,  because  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  makes  no  provision  on 
the  subject  of  these  temporary  authorities,  and  the  law  of  Congress  has  made 
provision  eqvially  applicable  to  the  recess  of  the  Senate  and  to  its  session. 

Here,  also,  I  beg  leave  to  remind  the  Senate  that  if  Mr.  Stanton's  case  does 
not  fall  within  the  tenure-of-office  act,  if  the  order  which  the  President  gave  to 
him  to  vacate  the  office  was  a  lawful  order  and  one  which  he  was  bound  to  obey, 
everything  which  is  contained  in  this  article,  as  well  as  in  the  preceding  articles, 
fails.  It  is  impossible,  I  submit,  for  the  honorable  managers  to  construct  a  case 
of  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  President  to  violate  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  out  of  anything  which  he  did  in  reference  to  the  appointment  of 
General  Thomas,  provided  the  order  to  Mr.  Stanton  was  a  lawful  order  and  Mr. 
Stanton  was  bound  to  obey  it. 

I  advance,  now,  senators,  to  a  different  class  of  articles,  and  they  may  prop- 
erly enough,  I  suppose,  be  called  the  conspiracy  articles,  because  they  rest  upon 
charges  of  conspiracy  between  the  President  and  General  Thomas.  There  are 
four  of  them,  the  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  in  number  as  they  stand. 
The  fourth  and  the  sixth  are  framed  under  the  act  of  July  31,  1861,  which  is 
found  in  12  Statutes  at  Large,  page  284.  The  fifth  and  seventh  are  framed 
under  no  act  of  Congress.  They  allege  an  unlawful  conspiracy,  but  they  refer 
to  no  law  by  which  the  acts  charged  are  made  unlawful.  The  acts  chai-ged 
are  called  unlawful,  but  there  is  no  law  referred  to  and  no  case  made  by  the 
articles  within  any  law  of  the  United  States  that  is  known  to  the  President's 
counsel.  I  shall  treat  these  articles,  therefore,  the  fourth  and  sixth  together, 
and  the  fifth  and  seventh  together,  because  I  think  they  belong  in  that  order. 
In  the  first  place,  let  me  consider  the  fourth  and  sixth,  which  charge  a  conspiracy 
"within  this  act  which  I  have  just  mentioned.  It  is  necessary  for  me  to  read 
the  substance  of  this  law  in  order  that  you  may  see  whether  it  can  have  any 
possible  application  to  this  case.  It  was  passed  on  the  31st  of  July,  1861,  as 
a  war  measure,  and  is  entitled,  "An  act  to  define  and  punish  certain  conspira- 
cies."    It  provides — 

That  if  two  or  more  persons  -within  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States  shall 
conspire  together  to  overthrow  or  to  put  down  or  to  destroy  by  force  the  goverumeut  of  the 
United  States,  or  to  levy  war  against  the  United  States,  or  to  oppose  by  force  the  authority 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  by  force  to  prevent,  hinder,  or  delay  the  execu- 
tion of  any  law  of  the  United  States,  or  by  force  to  seize,  take,  or  possess  any  property  of 
the  United  States  against  the  will  or  contrary  to  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  or  by 
force,  or  intimidation,  or  threat  to  prevent  any  person  from  accepting  or  holding  any  office 
or  trust  or  place  of  confidence  under  the  United  States. 

These  are  the  descriptions  of  the  offences.  The  fourth  and  sixth  articles 
contain  allegations  that  the  President  and  General  Thomas  conspired  together 
by  force,  intimidation,  and  threats,  to  prevent  Mr.  Stanton  from  continuing  to 
hold  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War;  and  also  that  they 
conspired  together  by  force  to  obtain  possession  of  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States.     These  are  the  two  articles  which  I  suppose  are  designed  to  be 


406  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

(liawn  under  this  act ;  and  these  are  the  allegations  which  are  intended  to  bring 
the  articles  within  it. 

Now,  it  docs  seem  to  me  that  the  attempt  to  wrest  this  law  to  any  hearing 
whatsoever  upon  this  prosecution  is  one  of  the  extraordinary  things  which  the 
case  contains.  In  the  first  place,  so  far  from  having  been  designed  to  apply  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  to  any  act  he  miglit  do  in  the  course  of 
the  execution  of  what  he  believed  to  be  his  duty,  it  does  not  apply  to  any  man 
or  any  thing  within  the  District  of  Columbia  at  all. 

If  two  or  more  persous  within  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States. 

Not  within  the  District  of  Columbia.  This  is  a  highly  penal  law,  and  an 
indictment  found  in  the  very  words  of  this  act  charging  things  to  have  been  done 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  returned  into  the  proper  court  of  this  District,  I 
will  undertake  to  say,  would  not  bear  a  general  demurrer,  because  there  is 
locality  given  to  those  things  made  penal  by  this  act  of  Congress.  It  is  made 
applicable  to  certain  portions  of  the  country,  but  not  made  applicable  to  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

But  not  to  dwell  upon  that  technical  view  of  the  matter,  and  on  which  we 
should  not  choose  to  stand,  let  us  see  what  is  this  case.  The  President  of  the 
United  States  is  of  opinion  that  Mr.  Stanton  holds  the  office  of  Secretary  for 
the  Department  of  War  at  his  pleasure.  He  thinks  so,  first,  because  he 
believes  the  case  of  Mr.  Stanton  is  not  provided  for  in  the  tenure-of-office  act, 
and  no  tenure  of  office  is  secured  to  him.  He  thinks  so,  secondly,  because  he 
believes  that  it  Avould  be  judicially  decided,  if  the  question  could  be  raised, 
that  a  law  depriving  the  President  of  the  power  of  removing  such  an  oiUcer  at 
his  pleasure  is  not  a  constitutional  law.  He  is  of  opinion  that  in  this  case  he 
cannot  allow  this  officer  to  continue  to  act  as  his  adviser  and  as  his  agent  to 
execute  the  laws  if  he  has  lawful  power  to  remove  him  ;  and  under  these  circum- 
stances he  gives  this  order  to  General  Thomas. 

I  do  not  view  this  letter  of  authority  to  Ceneral  Thomas  as  a  purely  military 
order.  The  service  which  General  Thomas  was  invoked  for  is  a  civil  service  ; 
but,  at  the  same  time,  senators  will  perceive  that  the  person  who  gave  the  order 
is  the  Commander-in-chief  of  the  army  ;  that  the  person  to  whom  it  was  given 
is  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  army;  that  the  subject-matter  to  which  the  order 
relates  is  the  performance  of  services  essential  to  carry  on  the  military  service  ; 
and,  therefore,  when  such  an  order  was  given  by  the  Commander-in-chief  to  the 
Adjutant  General  res])ecting  a  subject  of  this  kind,  is  it  too  much  to  say  that 
there  was  invoked  that  spirit  of  military  obedience  which  constitutes  the  strength 
of  the  service  ?  Not  that  it  was  a  purely  military  order;  not  that  General 
Thomas  would  have  been  subject  to  a  court-martial  for  disobeying  it  ;  but  that 
as  a  faithful  Adjutant  General  of  the  army  of  the  United  States,  interested  per- 
sonally and  })n)fessionally  and  patriotically  to  have  the  duties  of  the  office  of 
Secretary  for  th(!  Department  of  War  performed  in  a  temj)orary  vacancy,  was 
it  not  his  duty  to  accept  the  appointnu-nt  unless  he  saw  and  knew  that  it  was 
unlawful  to  accept  it  ?  1  do  not  know  how,  in  fact,  he  personally  considered 
it;  there  has  been  no  proof  given  on  the  subject;  but  1  have  always  assumed — 
I  think  senators  will  assume — that  when  the  distinguished  (general  of  the  army 
of  the  United  States,  on  a  juevious  occasion,  accepted  a  similar  appointment,  it 
was  under  views  of  propriety  and  duty  such  as  those  which  1  have  now  been 
speaking  of;  and  how  and  why  is  thereto  be  attributed  to  General  Thomas,  as 
a  co-conspirator,  the  guilty  intent  of  designing  to  overthrow  the  laws  of  his  coun- 
try, when  a  fair  and  just  view  of  his  cpnduct  would  leave  him  entirely  with- 
out reproach  ? 

And  wh(  n  you  come,  spnators,  to  the  other  co-corspirator,  the  President  of 
the  United  Stales,  is  not  the  case  still  clearer  i*  INIake  it  a  case  of  priyate  right, 
if  you  please ;  put  it  as  strongly  as  possible  against  the  President  in  order  to 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  407 

test  the  question.  One  of  you  has  a  claim  to  property;  it  may  be  a  disputecl 
claim;  it  is  a  claim  which  he  believes  may  prove,  when  judicially  examined,  to 
be  sound  and  good.  He  says  to  A.  B.,  "  Go  to  C.  D  ,  who  is  in  possession  of. 
that  property ;  I  give  you  this  order  to  him  to  give  it  up  to  you ;  and  if  he 
gives  it  up.  take  possession."  Did  anybody  ever  imagine  that  that  was  a  con- 
spiracy ?  Does  not  every  lawyer  know  that  the  moment  yoia  introduce  into 
any  transaction  of  tlds  kind  the  clement  of  a  claim  of  right  all  criminal  elements 
are  purged  at  once  ;  and  that  this  is  always  trvie  between  man  and  man  where 
it  is  a  simple  assertion  of  private  right,  the  parties  to  which  are  at  liberty  either 
to  assert  them  or  forego  them,  as  they  please  ?  But  this  was  not  such  a  case ; 
this  was  a  case  of  public  right,  of  public  duty,  of  public  right  claimed  upon 
constitutional  grounds  and  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  law  which  had  been 
given  to  it  by  the  law-makers  themselves.  How  can  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  under  such  circumstances,  be  looked  upon  by  anybody,  whether  he  may 
or  may  not  be  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  other  things,  as  a  co-conspirator  under  this 
act  ? 

These  articles  say  that  the  conspiracy  between  the  President  and  General 
Thomas  was  to  employ  force,  threats,  intimidation.  What  they  have  proved 
against  the  President  is  that  he  issued  these  orders,  and  that  alone.  Now,  on 
the  face  of  these  orders,  there  is  no  apology  for'  the  assertion  that  it  was  the 
design  of  the  President  that  anybody  at  any  time  should  use  force,  threats,  or 
intimidation.  The  order  is  to  Mr.  Stanton  to  deliver  up  possession.  The  order 
to  General  Thomas  is  to  receive  possession  from  Mr.  Stanton  when  he  delivers 
it  up.  No  force  is  assigned  to  liim ;  no  authority  is  given  to  him  to  apply  for 
or  use  any  force,  threats,  or  intimidation.  There  is  not  only  no  express  authority, 
but  there  is  no  implication  of  any  authority  to  apply  for  or  obtain  or  use  any- 
thing but  the  order  which  was  given  him  to  hand  to  Mr.  Stanton  ;  and  we  shall 
offer  proof,  senators,  which  we  think  cannot  fail  to  be  satisfactory  in  point  of 
fact,  that  the  President  from  the  first  had  iu  view  simply  and  solely  to  test  this 
question  by  the  law  ;  that  if  this  was  a  conspiracy  it  was  a  conspiracy  to  go  to 
law,  and  that  was  the  whole  of  it.  We  shall  show  you  what  advice  the  Presi- 
^  dent  I'eceived  on  this  subject,  what  views  in  concert  with  his  advisers  he  enter- 
tained, which,  of  course,  it  is  not  my  province  now  to  comment  upon  ;  the 
evidence  must  first  be  adduced,  then  it  will  be  time  to  consider  it. 

The  other  two  conspiracy  articles  will  require  very  little  observation  from  me, 
because  they  contain  no  new  allegations  of  fact  which  are  not  in  the  fourth  and 
sixth  articles,  which  I  have  already  adverted  to  ;  and  the  only  distinction 
between  them  and  the  others  is  that  they  are  not  founded  upon  this  conspiracy 
act  of  18C1 ;  they  simply  allege  an  unlawful  conspiracy,  and  leave  the  matter 
there.  They  do  not  allege  suliicient  facts  to  bring  the  case  within  the  act  of 
186 1.  In  other  words,  they  do  not  allege  force,  threats,  or  intimidation.  I 
shall  have  occasion  to  remark  upon  these  articles  when  I  come  to  speak  of  the 
tenth  article,  because  these  articles,  as  you  perceive,  come  within  that  category 
which  the  honorable  manager  announced  here  at  an  early  period  of  the  trial  ; 
articles  which  require  no  law  to  support  them ;  and  when  I  come  to  speak  of 
the  tenth  article,  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  discuss  this  subject,  I  wish  that 
my  remarks,  so  far  as  they  may  be  deemed  applicable,  should  be  applied  to 
these  fifth  and  seventh  articles  which  I  have  thus  passed  over. 

I  shall  detain  the  Senate  but  a  moment  upon  the  ninth  article,  which  is  the 
one  relating  to  the  conversation  with  General  Emory.  The  meaning  of  this 
article,  as  I  read  it,  is  that  the  President  brought  General  Emory  before  himself  - 
as  Commander-in-chief  of  the  army  for  the  p  irpose  of  instructing  him  to  dis- 
obey the  law,  with  an  intent  to  induce  General  Emory  to  disobey  it,  and  with 
intent  to  enable  himself  unlawfully,  and  by  the  use  of  military  force  through 
General  Emory,  to  prevent  Mr.  Stanton  from  continuing  to  hold  office.  Now  I 
submit  that  not   only  does   this  article  fail  of  proof  in  its   substance  as  "thus 


408  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

d'  tailed,  but  that  it  is  disproved  by  the  witness  whom  they  have  introduced  to 
support  it  In  the  first  phice,  it  appears  clearly  from  General  Emory's  state- 
.itient  that  the  President  did  not  bring  him  therefor  any  purpose  connected  with 
this  appropriation  bill  aflfecting  the  command  of  the  army,  or  the  orders  given 
to  the  army.  This  subject  General  Emory  introduced  himself,  and  when  the 
conversation  was  broken  off  it  was  again  recurred  to  by  himself  asking  the 
President's  permission  to  bring  it  to  his  attention.  "Whatsoever  was  said  upon 
that  subject  was  said  not  because  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  brought 
the  commander  of  the  department  of  Washington  before  him  for  that  purpose, 
but  because,  having  brought  him  there  for  another  purpose,  to  which  I  shall 
allude  in  a  moment,  the  commanding  general  chose  himself  to  introduce  that 
subject  and  converse  upon  it,  and  obtain  the  President's  views  upon  it. 

In  the  next  place,  having  his  attention  called  to  the  act  of  Congress  and  to 
the  order  under  it,  the  President  expressed  precisely  the  same  opinion  to  General 
Emory  that  he  had  previously 'publicly  expressed  to  Congress  itself  at  the  time 
when  the  act  was  sent  to  him  for  his  signature;  and  there  is  found  set  out 
in  his  answer  on  page  32  of  the  official  report  of  these  proceedings  what  that 
opinion  was  ;  that  he  considered  that  this  provision  interfered  with  his  consti- 
tutional right  as  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army ;  and  that  is  what  he  said 
to  General  Emory.  There  is  not  even  probable  cause  to  believe  that  he  said  it 
for  any  other  than  the  natural  reason  that  General  Emory  had  introduced  the 
subject,  had  asked  leave  to  call  his  attention  to  it,  and  evidently  expected  and 
desired  that  the  President  should  say  something  on  the  subject;  and  if  he  said 
anything,  was  he  not  to  tell  the  truth  1  That  is  exactly  what  he  did  say :  I 
mean  the  truth  as  he  apprehended  it.  It  will  appear  in  proof,  as  I  am  instructed, 
that  the  reason  why  the  President  sent  for  General  Emory  was  not  that  he  might 
endeavor  to  seduce  that  distinguished  officer  from  his  allegiance  to  the  laws  and 
the  Constitution  of  his  country,  but  because  he  wished  to  obtain  information 
about  military  movements,  which  he  was  informed,  upon  authority  which  he  had 
a  right  to  and  was  bound  to  respect,  might  require  his  personal  attention. 

I  pass,  then,  from  this  article,  as  being  one  upon  which  I  ought  not  to  detain 
the  Senate,  and  I  come  to  the  last  one,  concerning  which  I  shall  have  much  to 
say,  and  that  is  the  tenth  article,  which  is  all  of  and  concerning  the  speeches  of 
the  President. 

In  the  front  of  this  inqui*-y  the  question  presents  itself :  What  are  impeach- 
able offences  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ?  Upon  this  ques- 
tion learned  dissertations  have  been  written  and  printed.  One  of  them  is 
annexed  to  the  argument  of  the  honorable  manager  who  opened  the  cause  for 
the  prosecution.  Another  one  on  the  other  side  of  the  question,  written  by  one 
of  the  honorable  managers  themselves,  may  be  found  annexed  to  the  proceed- 
ings in  the  House  of  Representatives  upon  the  occasion  of  the  first  attempt  to 
impeach  the  President.  And  there  have  been  others  written  and  pul dished  by 
learned  jurists  touching  this  subject.  I  do  not  propose  to  vex  the  ear  of  the 
Senate  with  any  of  the  precedents  drawn  from  the  middle  ages.  The  framers 
of  our  Constitution  were  quite  as  familiar  with  them  as  the  learned  authors  of 
these  treatises,  and  the  framers  of  our  Constitution,  as  I  conciive,  have  drawn 
from  them  the  lesson  which  1  desire  the  Senate  to  receive,  that  these  prece- 
dents are  not  fit  to  govern  their  conduct  on  this  trial. 

In  my  apprehension,  the  teachings,  the  rcHpiirements,  the  prohibitions  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  prove  all  tliat  is  necessary  to  be  attended  to 
for  the  purposes  of  this  trifll.  I  propose,  therefore,  instead  of  a  search  through 
the  precedents  which  were  made  in  the  times  of  the  Plantagenets,  the  Tudors, 
and  the  Stuarts,  and  which  have  been  rep(!ated  since,  to  come  nearer  home  and 
see  what  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  bear  on  this  ques- 
tion, and  wheiher  they  are  not  sufficient  to  settle  it.  If  they  are,  it  is  quite 
imamterial  what  exists  elsewhere. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  409 

Mj  first  position  is,  that  when  the  Constitution  speaks  of  "treason,  brinerv, 
and  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,"  it  refers  to,  and  includes  only,  high 
criminal  offt'nces  against  the  United  States,  made  so  by  some  law  of  the  United 
States  existing  when  the  acts  complained  of  were  done,  and  I  say  that  this  is 
plainly  to  be  inferred  from  each  and  every  provision  of  the  Constitution  ou  the 
subject  of  impeachment. 

"  Treason  "  and  "  bribery."  Nobody  will  doubt  that  these  are  here  desig- 
nated high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  against  the  United  States,  made  such  by 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  which  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  knew 
must  be  passed  in  the  nature  of  the  government  they  were  about  to  create, 
because  these  are  offences  which  strike  at  the  existence  of  that  government. 
"  Other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  Noscitur  a  sociis.  High  crimes  and 
misdemeanors;  so  high  that  they  belong  in  this  company  with  treason  and 
bribery.  That  is  plain  on  the  face  of  the  Constitution — in  the  very  first  step 
it  takes  ou  the  subject  of  impeachment.  "  High  crimes  and  misdemeanors " 
against  what  law?  There  can  be  no  crime,  there  can  be  no  misdemeanor 
without  a  law,  written  or  unwritten,  express  or  implied.  There  must  be  some 
law,  otherwise  there  is  no  crime.  My  interpretation  of  it  is  that  the  language 
"high  crimes  and  misdemeanors"  means  "offences  against  the  laws  of  the 
United  States."     Let  us  see  if  the  Constitution  has  not  said  so. 

The  first  clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  second  article  of  the  Constitu- 
tion reads  thus : 

The  President  of  the  United  States  shall  have  the  power  to  grant  reprieves  and  pardons 
for  offences  against  the  United  States,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment. 

"Offences  against  the  United  States"  would  include  "cases  of  impeach- 
ment," and  they  might  be  pardoned  by  the  President  if  they  were  not  excepted. 
Then  cases  of  impeachment  are,  according  to  the  express  declaration  of  the 
Constitution  itself,  cases  of  offences  against  the  United  States. 

Still,  the  learned  manager  says  that  this  is  not  a  court,  and  that,  whatever 
may  be  the  character  of  this  body,  it  is  bound  by  no  law.  Very  different  was 
the  understanding  of  the  fathers  of  the  Constitution  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Will  you  state  where  it  was  I  said  it  was  bound  by 
no  law  ] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  "A  law  unto  itself." 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  "  No  common  or  statute  law"  was  my  language. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  desire  to  refer  to  the  sixty-fourth  number  of  the  Federalist, 
which  is  found  in  Dawson's  edition,  on  page  453  : 

The  remaining  powers  which  the  plan  of  the  Convention  allots  to  the  Senate,  in  a  distinct 
capacity,  are  comprised  in  their  participation  with  the  Executive  in  the  appointment  to  offices, 
and  in  their  judicial  character  as  a  court  for  the  trial  of  impeachments,  as  in  the  business  of 
appointments  the  Executive  will  be  the  principal  agent,  the  provisions  relating  to  it  will 
most  properly  be  discussed  in  the  examination  of  that  department.  We  will  therefore  con- 
clude this  head  with  a  view  of  the  judicial  character  of  the  Senate. 

And  then  it  is  discussed.  The  next  position  to  which  I  desire  the  attention 
of  the  Senate  is,  that  there  is  enough  written  in  the  Constitution  to  prove  that 
this  is  a  court  in  which  a  judicial  trial  is  now  being  carried  on.  "The  Senate 
of  the  United  States  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments." 
"  When  the  President  is  tried  the  Chief  Justice  shall  preside."  "  The  trial  of 
all  crimes,  except  in  case  of  impeachment,  shall  be  by  jury."  This,  then,  is  the 
trial  of  a  crime.  You  are  triers,  presided  over  by  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United 
States  in  this  particular  case,  and  that  on  the  express  words  of  the  Constitution. 
There  is  also,  according  to  its  express  words,  to  be  an  acquital  or  a  conviction  ou 
this  trial  for  a  crime.  "  No  person  shall  be  convicted  without  the  concurrence 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present."  There  is  also  to  be  a  judgment  in  case 
there  shall  be  a  conviction. 

Judgment  in  cases  of  impeachment  shall  not  extend  further  than  removal  from  office  and 
distiuaiilication  to  hold  any  office  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit  under  the  United  States. 


410  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

Here,  then,  there  is  the  trial  of  a  crime,  a  trial  by  a  tribunal  designated  by 
the  Constitution  in  place  of  court  and  jury ;  a  conviction,  if  guilt  is  proved  ;  a 
judgment  on  that  conviction  ;  a  punishment  inflicted  by  the  judgment  for  a 
crime  ;  and  this  on  the  express  terms  of  the  Constitution  itself  And  yet,  say 
the  honorable  managers,  there  is  no  court  to  try  the  crime  and  no  law  by  which 
the  act  is  to  be  judged.  The  honorable  manager  interrupted  me  to  say  that  he 
qualified  that  expression  of  no  law  ;  his  expression  was,  "  no  common  or  statute 
law."  Well,  when  you  get  out  of  that  field  you  are  in  a  limbo,  a  vacuum,  so 
far  as  law  is  concerned,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief. 

I  say,  then,  that  it  is  impossible  not  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  has  designated  impeachable  oflFcnccs  as  oflPences 
against  the  United  States  ;  that  it  has  provided  for  the  trial  of  those  offences ; 
that  it  has  established  a  tribunal  for  the  purpose  of  trying  them  ;  tliat  it  has 
directed  the  tribunal,  in  case  of  conviction,  to  pronounce  a  judgment  upon  the 
conviction  and  inflict  a  punishment.  All  this  being  provided  for,  can  it  be  main- 
tained that  this  is  not  a  court,  or  that  it  is  bound  by  no  law  1 

But  the  argument  does  not  rest  mainly,  I  think,  upon  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  concerning  impeachment.  It  is,  at  any  rate,  vastly  strengthened 
by  the  direct  prohibitions  of  the  Constitution.  "  Congress  shall  pass  no  bill  of 
attainder  or  ex  post  Jacto  law."  According  to  that  prohibition  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, if  every  member  of  this  body,  sitting  in  its  legislative  capacity,  and  every 
member  of  the  other  body,  sitting  in  its  legislative  capacity,  should  unite  in  pass- 
ing a  law  to  punish  an  act  alter  the  act  was  done,  that  law  would  be  a  mere 
nullity.  Yet  what  is  claimed  by  the  honorable  managers  in  behalf  of  members 
of  this  body  1  As  a  Congress  you  cannot  create  a  law  to  punish  these  acts  if  no 
law  existed  at  the  time  they  were  done  ;  but  sitting  here  as  judges,  not  only 
after  the  fact,  but  while  the  case  is  on  trial,  you  may  individually,  each  one  of 
you,  create  a  law  by  himself  to  govern  the  case. 

According  to  this  assumption  the  same  Constitution  which  has  made  it  a  bill 
of  i-ights  of  the  American  citizen,  not  only  as  against  Congress  but  as  against 
tlie  legislature  of  every  State  in  the  Union,  that  no  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be 
passed — this  same  Constitution  has  erected  you  into  a  body  and  empowered 
every  one  of  you  to  say  aut  inveniatn  autfaciam  :  if  I  cannot  find  a  law  I  will 
make  one.  Nay,  it  has  clot  led  every  oite  of  you  with  imperial  power;  it  has 
enabled  you  to  say,  sic  volu,  sic  juheo,  statproratione  voluntas :  I  am  a  law  unto 
myself,  by  which  law  I  shall  govern  this  case.  And,  more  than  that,  when  each 
one  of  you  before  he  took  his  place  here  called  God  to  witness  that  he  would 
administer  impartial  justice  in  this  case  according  to  the  Constitution  and  the 
laws,  he  meant  such  laws  as  he  might  make  as  he  went  along.  The  Constitu- 
tion, which  had  prohibited  anybody  from  making  such  laws,  he  swore  to  observe  ; 
but  he  also  swore  to  be  governed  by  his  own  will;  his  own  individual  will  was 
the  law  which  he  thus  swore  to  observe;  and  this  special  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution, that  when  the  Senate  sits  in  this  capacity  to  try  an  impeachment  the 
senators  shall  be  on  oath,  means  mendy  that  they  shall  swear  to  follow  their  own 
individual  wills!  I  respectfully  submit,  this  view  cannot  consistently  and  pro- 
perly he  taken  of  the  character  of  this  body,  or  of  the  duties  and  powers  incum- 
bent upon  it. 

Look  for  a  moment,  if  you  please,  to  the  other  provision.  The  same  search 
into  the  English  precedents,  so  far  from  having  made  our  ancestors  who  framed 
and  adopted  the  Constitution  in  love  with  them,  led  them  to  put  into  the  Con- 
stitution a  positive  and  absolute  prohibition  against  any  bill  of  attainder.  What 
is  a  bill  of  attainder  1  It  is  a  case  before  the  Parliament  where  the  Parliament 
make  the  law  for  the  facts  they  find.  Each  legislator — for  it  is  in  their  legis- 
lative capacity  tiny  act,  not  in  a  judicial  one — is,  to  use  the  phrase  of  the  hon- 
orable managers,  "  a  law  unto  himself,"  and  according  to  his  discretion,  his  views 
of  what  is  politic  or  proper  under  the  circumstances,  he   frames  a  law  to  meet 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  411 

the  case,  and  enacts  it  or  votes  in  its  enactment.  According  to  the  doctrine  now- 
advanced  bills  of  attainder  are  not  prohibited  by  this  Constitution  ;  they  are 
oidy  slightly  modified.  It  is  only  necessary  for  the  House  of  Representatives 
by  a  majority  to  vote  an  impeachment  and  send  up  certain  articles  and  have 
two-thirds  of  this  body  vote  in  favor  of  conviction,  and  there  is  an  attainder  ; 
and  it  is  done  by  the  same  process  and  depends  on  identically  the  same  princi- 
ples as  a  bill  of  attainder  in  the  English  Parliament.  The  individual  wills  of 
the  Ifgiir^lators,  instead  of  the  conscientious  discharge  of  the  duty  of  the  judges, 
settle  the  result. 

I  submit,  then,  senators,  that  this  view  of  the  honorable  managers  of  the  duties 
and  powers  of  this  body  cannot  be  maintained.  But  the  attempt  made  by  the 
honorable  managers  to  obtain  a  conviction  upon  this  tenth  article  is  attended 
with  some  peculiarities  which  I  think  it  is  tiie  duty  of  the  counsel  to  the  Presi- 
dent to  advert  to.  So  far  as  regards  the  preceding  articles,  the  first  eight  arti- 
cles are  framed  upon  allegations  that  the  President  broke  a  law.  I  suppose  the 
honorable  managers  do  not  intend  to  carry  their  doctrine  so  far  as  to  say 
that  unless  you  find  the  President  did  intentionally  break  a  law  those  articles 
are  supported.  As  to  those  articles  there  is  some  law  unquestionaljly,  the  very 
gist  of  the  charge  being  that  he  broke  a  law.  You  must  find  that  the  law  existed  ; 
you  must  construe  it  and  apply  it  to  the  case ;  you  must  find  his  criminal 
intent  wilfully  to  break  the  law,  before  the  articles  can  be  supported.  But  we 
come  now  to  this  tenth  article,  which  depends  upon  no  law  at  all,  but,  as  I  have 
said,  is  attended  with  some  extraordinary  peculiarities. 

The  complaint  is  that  the  President  made  speeches  against  Congress.  The 
true  statement  here  would  be  much  more  restricted  than  that ;  for  although  in  those 
speeches  the  President  used  the  word  "Congress,"  undoubtedly  he  did  not  mean 
the  entire  constitutional  body  organized  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States ;  he  meant  the  dominant  majority  in  Congress.  Everybody  so  under- 
stood it,  everybody  must  so  understand  it.  But  the  complaint  is  that  he  made 
speeches  against  those  who  governed  in  Congress.  Well,  who  are  the  grand 
jury  in  this  case  1  One  of  the  parties  spoken  against.  And  who  are  the  triers  1 
The  other  party  spoken  against.  One  would  think  there  was  some  incongruity 
in  this ;  some  reason  for  giving  pause  before  taking  any  very  great  stride  in 
that  direction  The  honorable  House  of  Representatives  sends  its  managers 
here  to  take  notice  of  what  1  That  the  House  of  Representatives  has  erected 
itself  into  a  school  of  manners,  selecting  from  its  ranks  those  gentlemen  whom 
it  deems  most  competent  by  precept  and  example  to  teach  decorum  of  speech  ; 
and  they  desire  the  judgment  of  this  body  whether  the  President  has  not  been 
guilty  of  indecorum,  whether  he  has  spoken  properly,  to  use  the  phrase  of  the 
honorable  manager.  Now,  .there  used  to  be  an  old-fashioned  notion  that  although 
then;  might  be  a  difference  of  taste  about  oral  speeches,  and,  no  doubt,  always  has 
been  and  always  will  be  many  such  differences,  there  was  one  very  important 
test  in  reference  to  them,  and  that  is  whether  they  are  true  or  false  ;  but  it 
seems  that  in  this  case  that  is  no  test  at  all.  The  honorable  manager,  in  open- 
ing the  case,  finding,  I  suppose,  that  it  was  necessary,  in  some  manner,  to  ad- 
vert to  that  subject,  has  done  it  in  terms  which  I  Avill  read  to  you : 

The  words  are  not  alleged  to  be  either  false  or  defamatory,  because  it  is  not  within  the 
power  of  aijy  man,  however  high  his  official  position,  in  effect  to  slander  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  word,  so  as  to  call  on  Congress  to  answer  as  to 
the  truth  of  the  accusation. 

Considering  the  nature  of  our  government,  considering  the  experience  which 
we  have  gone  through  on  this  subject,  that  is  a  pretty  lofty  claim.  Why,  if  the 
Senate  please,  if  you  go  back  to  the  time  of  the  Plantagenets  and  seek  for  pre- 
cedents there,  you  will  not  find  so  lofty  a  claim  as  that.  I  beg  leave  to  read 
from  two  statutes,  the  first  being  3  Edward  I,  ch.  34,  and  the  second,  2  Richaid 


412  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

II,  ch.  1,  a  short  passage.     The  statute  3  Edward  I,  ch.  34,  after  the  preamble, 
enacts : 

That  from  henceforth  none  be  so  hardy  to  teU  or  publish  any  false  news  or  tales,  whereby 
discord  ur  occa-iion  of  discord  or  slander  may  grow  between  the  King  and  his  people,  or  the 
great  men  of  the  realm  ;  and  he  that  doeth  so  shall  be  taken  and  kept  in  until  he  hath  hrought 
him  into  court  which  was  the  first  author  of  the  tale. 

The  statute  2  Richard  II,  ch.  1,  sec.  5,  enacted  with  some  alterations  the 
previous  statute.     It  commenced  thus  : 

Of  devisors  of  false  news  and  of  horrible  and  false  lies  of  prelates,  dukes,  earls,  barons, 
and  other  nobles  and  great  men  of  the  realm;  and  also  of  the  chancellor,  treasurer,  clerk  of 
the  privy  seal,  steward  of  the  King's  house,  justices  of  the  one  bench  or  of  the  other,  and  of 
other  great  ofiicers  of  the  realm. 

The  great  men  of  the  realm  in  the  time  of  Richard  II  were  protected  only 
against  "  horrible  and  false  lies,"  and  when  we  arrive  in  the  course  of  our 
national  experience  during  the  war  with  France  and  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Adams  to  that  attempt  to  check,  not  free  speech,  but  free  writing,  senators  will 
find  that  although  it  applied  only  to  written  libels  it  contained  an  express  sec- 
tion that  the  truth  might  be  given  in  evidence.  That  was  a  law,  as  senators 
know,  making  it  penal  by  written  libels  to  excite  the  hatred  or  contempt  of  the 
people  against  Congress  among  other  offences;  but  the  estimate  of  the  elevation 
of  Congress  above  the  people  was  not  so  high  but  that  it  was  thought  proper  to 
allow  a  defence  of  the  truth  to  be  given  in  evidence.  I  beg  leave  to  read  from 
this  sedition  act  a  part  of  one  section  and  make  a  reference  to  another  to  support 
the  correctness  of  what  I  have  said.     It  is  found  in  Statutes  at  Large,  page  596  : 

That  if  any  person  shall  write,  print,  utter,  or  publish,  or  shall  cause  or  procure  to  be 
written,  printed,  uttered,  or  published,  or  shall  knowingly  and  willingly  assist  or  aid  in 
writing,  printing,  uttering,  or  publishing  any  false  scandalous,  and  malicious  writing  or 
writings  against  the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  either  house  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  or  the  President  of  the  United  States,  with  intent  to  defame  the  said  govern- 
ment, or  either  house  of  the  said  Congress,  or  the  said  President,  or  to  bring  them,  or  either 
or  any  of  them  the  hatred  of  the  good  people  of  the  United  States,  or  to  stir  up  sedition  within 
the  United  States,  or  to  excite  any  unlawful  combinations  therein,  Sec. 

Section  three  provides — 

That  if  any  person  shall  be  prosecuted  under  this  act  for  the  writing  or  publishing  any 
libel  aforesaid,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  deleudant,  upon  the  trial  of  the  cause,  to  give  in 
evidence  in  his  defence  the  truth  of  the  matter  contained  in  the  publication  charged  as  a  libel. 
And  the  jury  who  shall  try  the  cause  shall  have  a  right  to  determine  the  law  and  the  fact, 
under  the  direction  of  the  court,  as  in  other  cases. 

In  contrast  with  the  views  expressed  here,  I  desire  now  to  read  from  the 
fourth  vyiumo  of  Mr.  Madison's  works,  pages  542  and  547,  passages  which,  in 
my  judgment,  are  as  masterly  as  anything  Mr  Madison  ever  wrote,  upon  the 
relations  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  the  people  of  the  United  States 
in  contrast  with  the  relations  of  the  government  of  Great  Britain  to  the  people 
of  that  island ;  and  the  necessity  which  the  nature  of  our  government  lays  us 
under  to  preserve  freedom  of  the  press  and  freedom  of  speech  : 

The  essential  difference  between  the  British  government  and  the  American  Constitution 
will  place  this  suljject  in  the  clearest  liglit. 

In  the  IJritish  government  tlie  danger  of  encroachments  on  the  rights  of  the  jieople  is 
understood  to  be  confined  to  the  executive  magistrate.  The  representatives  of  the  people  in 
the  legislature  arc  only  e.\empt  themselves  from  distrust,  but  are  consideied  as  sufficient 
gmudians  of  tin-  rights  uf  tln'ir  constitiiints  against  the  danger  from  the  executive.  Hence 
it  is  a  i)rinciple  that  the  Parliament  is  luilimited  in  its  power,  (U',  in  their  own  language,  is 
onniipotent.  Hence,  too,  all  the  ramparts  for  protecting  the  rights  of  tiie  people — such  as 
their  Magna  Charta,  their  iJill  of  Kights,  &c. — are  not  reared  against  tlie  Parliament,  but 
against  the  royal  prerogative.  The}-  are  merely  U^gislative  precautions  against  executive 
usur[)ations.  Under  such  a  goveriniient  as  tiiis,  an  exemption  of  tlie  press  from  previous 
restraint,  by  lici^nsers  appointed  by  the  King,  is  all  the  freedom  that  can  be  secured  to  it. 

In  the  United  Stales  the  ea.se  is  ahog<-tlicr  different.  The  people,  not  tiie  government, 
possess  the  absolute  sovereignty.  The  legislature,  no  less  tinin  the  executive,  is  under  limi- 
tations of  power.  Encroachments  are  regarded  as  possible  from  tlie  one  as  well  as  from  tlio 
Other.     Hence,  in  the  United  States,  the  great  and  essential  riglits  of  the  people  are  secured 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  413 

against  legislative  as  well  as  against  executive  ambition.  They  are  secured,  not  by  laws 
paramount  to  prerogative,  but  by  constitutions  paramount  to  laws.  This  security  of  the 
freedom  of  the  press  requires  that  it  should  be  exempt  not  only  from  previous  restraint  by 
the  executive,  as  in  great  Britain,  but  from  legislative  restraint  also ;  and  this  exemption, 
to  be  efl'ectual,  must  be  an  exemption  not  only  from  the  previous  inspection  of  licenses,  but 
from  the  subsequent  penalty  of  laws. 

One  other  passage,  on  page,  547,  which  has  an  extraordinary  application  to 
the  subject  now  before  you  : 

1.  Tlie  Constitution  supposes  that  the  President,  the  Congress,  and  each  of  its  houses  may 
not  discharge  their  trusts,  either  from  defect  of  judgment  or  otlier  causes.  Hence  they  are 
all  made  responsible  to  their  constituents  at  the  returning  periods  of  election  ;  and  the  Presi- 
dent, who  is  singly  intrusted  with  very  great  powers,  is,  as  a  further  guard,  subjected  to  an 
intermediate  impeachment. 

2.  Sliould  it  happen,  as  the  Constitution  supposes  it  may  happen,  that  either  of  these 
branches  of  the  government  may  not  have  duly  discharged  its  trust,  it  is  natural  and  proper 
that,  according  to  the  cause  and  degree  of  their  faults,  they  should  be  brought  into  contempt 
or  disrepute,  and  incur  tlie  hatred  of  the  people. 

3.  Whether  it  has,  in  any  case,  happened  that  the  proceedings  of  eitlier  or  all  of  those 
branches  evince  such  a  violation  of  duty  as  to  justify  a  contempt,  a  disrepute,  or  hatred 
among  the  people,  can  only  be  determined  by  a  free  examination  thereof,  and  a  free  commu- 
nication among  the  people  thereon. 

4.  Whenever  it  may  have  actually  happened  that  proceedings  of  this  sort  are  chargeable 
on  all  or  either  of  the  brandies  of  the  government,  it  is  the  duty,  as  well  as  right,  of  intelli- 
gent and  faithful  citizens  to  discuss  and  promulge  them  freely,  as  well  to  control  them  by 
the  censorship  of  the  public  opinion  as  to  promote  a  remedy  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
Constitution.  And  it  cannot  be  avoided  that  those  who  are  to  apply  tlie  remedy  must  feel, 
in  some  degree,  a  contempt  or  hatred  against  the  transgressing  party. 

These  observations  of  Mr.  Madison  were  made  in  respect  to  the  freedom  of 
the  press.  There  were  two  views  entertained  at  the  time  when  the  sedition  law 
was  passed  concerning  the  power  of  Congress  over  this  subject.  The  one  view 
was  that  when  the  Constitution  spoke  of  freedom  of  the  press  it  referred  to  the 
common-law  definition  of  that  freedom.  That  was  the  view  which  Mr.  Madison 
was  controverting  in  one  of  the  passages  which  I  have  read  to  you.  The  other 
view  was  that  the  common-law  definition  could  not  be  deemed  applicable,  and 
that  the  freedom  provided  lor  by  the  Constitution,  so  far  as  the  action  of  Con- 
gress was  concerned,  was  an  absolute  freedom  of  the  press.  But  no  one  ever 
imagined  that  freedom  of  speech,  in  contradistinction  from  written  libel,  could 
be  restrained  by  a  law  of  Congress;  for  whether  you  treat  the  prohibition  in  the 
Constitution  as  absolute  in  itself,  or  whether  you  refer  to  the  common  law  for  a 
definition  of  its  limits  and  meaning,  the  result  will  be  the  same.  Under  the  com- 
mon law  no  man  was  ever  punished  criminally  for  spoken  words.  If  he  slan- 
dered his  neighbor  and  injured  him,  he  must  make  good  in  damages  to  his  neigh- 
bor the  injury  he  had  done;  but  there  was  no  such  thing  at  the  common  law  as 
an  indictment  for  spoken  words.  So  that  this  prohibition  in  the  Constitution 
against  any  legislation  by  Congress  in  restraint  of  the  freedom  of  speech  is 
necessarily  an  absolute  prohibition  ;  and  therefore  this  is  a  case  not  only  where 
there  is  no  law  made  prior  to  the  act  to  punish  the  act,  but  a  case  where  Con- 
gi-ess  ia  expressly  prohibited  from  making  any  law  to  operate  even  on  subse- 
quent acts. 

What  is  the  law  to  be  ?  Suppose  it  is,  as  the  honorable  managers  seom  to 
think  it  should  be,  the  sense  of  propriety  of  each  senator  appealed  to.  What 
is  it  to  be?  The  only  rule  1  have  heard,  the  only  rule  which  can  be  announced, 
is  that  you  may  require  the  speaker  to  speak  properly.  Who  are  to  be  the 
judges  whether  he  speaks  properly]  In  this  case  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  on  the  presentation  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  ; 
and  that  is  supposed  to  be  the  freedom  of  speech  secured  by  this  absolute  pro- 
hibition of  the  Constitution.  That  is  the  same  freedom  of  speech,  senators,  in 
consequence  of  which  thousands  of  men  went  to  the  scaffold  under  the  Tudors 
and  the  Stuarts.  Tliat  is  the  same  freedom  of  speech  whicli  caused  thousands 
of  heads  of  men  and  of  women  to  roll  from  the  o-uillotine  in  France.     That  is 


414  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  same  freorlora  of  speech  which  has  caused  in  our  day,  more  than  once,  "  order 
to  reigii  in  Warsaw."  The  persons  did  not  speak  properly  in  the  apprehension 
of  the  judges  before  whom  they  were  brought.  Is  that  the  freedom  of  speech 
intended  to  be  secured  by  our  Constitution? 

Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  I  have  to  detain  you  but  a  very  short  time 
longer,  and  that  is  by  a  few  observations  concerning  the  eleventh  article,  and 
they  will  be  very  few,  for  the  reason  that  the  eleventh  article,  as  I  understand 
it,  contains  nothing  new  which  needs  any  notice  from  me.  It  appears  by  the 
official  copy  of  the  articles  which  is  before  us,  the  printed  copy,  that  this  article 
was  adopted  at  a  later  period  than  the  preceding  nine  articles,  and  I  suppose  it 
has  that  appeai-ance,  that  the  honorable  managers,  looking  over  the  work  they  had 
already  performed,  perhaps  not  feeling  perfectly  satisfied  to  leave  it  iu  the  shape 
in  which  it  then  stood,  came  to  the  concision  to  add  this  eleventh  article,  and  they 
have  compounded  it  out  of  the  materials  which  they  had  previously  worked  up 
into  the  others.  In  the  first  place,  they  said,  here  are  the  speeches ;  we  will 
have  something  about  them,  and  accordingly  they  begin  by  the  allegation  that 
the  President,  at  the  Executive  Mansion  on  a  certain  occasion,  made  a  speech, 
and  without  giving  his  words,  but  it  is  attributed  to  him  that  he  had  an  intention 
to  declare  that  this  was  not  a  Congress  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  ; 
all  of  which  is  denied  in  his  answer,  and  there  is  no  proof  to  support  it.  The 
■  President,  by  his  whole  course  of  conduct,  has  shown  that  he  could  have  enter- 
tained no  such  intention  as  that.  He  has  explained  that  fully  in  his  answer, 
and  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  repeat  the  explanation. 

Then  they  come  to  the  old  matter  of  the  removal  of  Mr.  "Stanton.  They  say 
he  made  this  speech  denying  the  competency  of  Congress  to  legislate,  and  fol- 
lowing up  its  intent  he  endeavored  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton.  I  have  sufiiciently 
discussed  that,  and  I  shall  not  weary  the  patience  of  the  Senate  by  doing  so 
any  further. 

Then  they  say  that  he  made  this  speech  and  followed  up  its  intent  by  endeavor- 
ing to  ge*'  possession  of  the  money  appropriated  for  the  military  service  of  the 
United  States.     I  have  said  all  I  desire  to  say  upon  that. 

Then  they  say  that  he  made  it  with  the  intent  to  obstruct  what  is  called 
the  law  "for  the  better  government  of  the  rebrl  States,"  passed  in  March,  1867, 
and  iu  support  of  that  they  have  offi'red  a  telegram  to  him  from  Governor  Par- 
sons, and  an  answer  to  that  telegram  from  the  President,  upon  the  subject  of  an 
amendment  of  the  Constitution,  sent  in  January  before  the  March  when  the  law 
came  into  existence,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  is  the  only  evidence  which  they 
have  offered  upon  that  subjec*.  I  leave,  therefore,  with  these  remarks,  that 
article  for  the  consideration  of  the  Senate. 

It  must  be  unnecessary  for  me  to  say  anything  concerning  the  importance  of 
this  case,  not  only  now,  but  in  the  future.  It  must  be  apparent  to  every  one,  in 
any  way  connected  with  or  concerned  in  this  trial,  that  this  is  and  will  be  the 
most  conspicuous  instance  which  ever  has  been  or  can  ever  be  expected  to  be 
found  of  American  justice  or  American  injustice,  of  that  justice  which  Mr. 
Burke  says  is  the  great  standing  policy  of  all  civilized  states,  or  of  that  injus- 
tice which  is  sure  to  be  discovered  and  which  makes  even  the  wise  man  mad, 
and  which,  in  the  fixed  and  immutable  order  of  God's  providence,  is  certain  to 
return  to  plague  its  inventors. 

Mr.  Co.NNKS.s,  (at  two  o'clock  and  twenty  miiuitcs  p.  m.)  Mr.  President,  I 
move  that  the  court  take  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Chief  Justice  resumed  the  chair  at  twenty- 
five  minutes  to  three  o'clock. 

The  Chi KF  Justice.  Senators  will  please  resume  their  seats  and  give,  their 
attention.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the  President,  you  Avill  please  proceed  with 
the  defence. 

Mr.  STA.\nKF{Y.  We  will  call  General  Thorn  is  first. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  415 

Lorenzo  Thomas  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  General  Thomas,  will  you  state  how  long  you  have  been  in  the  service  ? 

A.  I  went  to  West  Point  in  the  year  1S19.  I  entered  the  Military  Academy 
in  September  of  that  year,  and  was  graduated  July  1,  lS2o,  and  appointed 
second  lieutenant  of  the  fourth  infantry.  I  have  been  in  the  army  since  that 
date. 

Q.  What  is  your  present  rank  in  the  army  ? 

A.  I  am  Adjutant  General  of  the  army,  with  the  rank  of  brigadier  general,  and 
major  general  by  brevet. 

Q.  When  was  your  brevet  conferred  1 

A.  I  really  forge^.     I  would  have  to  refer  to  the  Army  Register  for  that. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  the  year  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  was  after  1  returned  from  one  of  my  southern  trips. 

Q.  During  the  war  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Toward  the  close  of  it? 

A.  Toward  the  close  of  it.  I  was  first  made  a  colonel,  as  Adjutant  General, 
on  the  7th  of  March,  when  Colonel  Cooper  went  out. 

Q.  When  were  you  first  appointed  Adjutant  General  ? 

A.  On  the  7th  of  March,  1861. 

Q.  On  what  service  were  you  during  the  war,  generally  ?  Give  us  an  idea 
of  your  service. 

A.  During  the  administration  of  the  War  Department  by  General  Cameron 
I  was  on  duty  as  Adjutant  General  in  the  ofiice.  I  accompnnied  him  on  his 
western  trip  to  MisBouri  and  Kentucky,  and  returned  witli  him.  Then,  after 
that,  after  making  that  report,  he  left  the  department,  and  .\[r.  Stanton  was 
appointed.  I  remained  in  the  department  some  time  after  Mr.  Stanton  was 
appointed — several  months.  The  first  duty  he  placed  me  on  from  the  ofiice — 
at  any  rate  as  one  of  the  duties — he  sent  me  down  on  the  James  river  to  make 
exchanges  of  prisoners  of  war  under  the  arrangement  made  by  General  Dix 
with  the  rebels. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  To  what  point  is  this  evidence? 

Mr.  Sta.nbery.  To  bring  around  the  reason  why  there  was  the  interruption 
in  the  Adjutant  General's  business,  and  how  long  it  continued  and  when  he 
returned.  It  will  be  through  in  a  moment.  (To  witness.)  What  was  the 
next  service  ? 

A.  During  the  war  I  was  sent  once  or  twice,  three  times,  perhaps,  to  Harris- 
burg  to  organize  volunteers  and  to  correct  some  irregularities  there  ;  not  irregu- 
larities exactly,  but  in  order  to  put  regiments  together,  skeleton  regiments.  I 
was  sent  there  and  ordered  to  bring  them  together,  once  at  Philadelphia  and 
twice  at  Ilarrisburg.  I  was  sent  to  Harrisburg  also  about  the  time  that  Lee  was 
invading  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania  ;  but  my  principal  duty  was  down  on  the 
Mississijipi  river. 

Q.  What  was  the  duty  there  ? 

A.  Threefold.  The  first  was  to  inspect  the  armies  on  the  river  in  that  part 
of  the  country.     The  second  was  to  look  into  cotton  lands. 

Mr.  Manager  Bctler.  Will  not  that  appear  better  by  the  order? 

The  Witness.  I  have  it. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  The  orders  are  here,  but  it  will  take  a  great  while  to  intro- 
duce them. 

Mr.  Manag(?r  Butler.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  will  ask  him  nothing  but  what  he  has  performed.  (To  the 
witness.)     What  was  the  third  duty? 

A.  To  take  charge  of  the  negro  population  and  organize  them  as  troops. 


416  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

Q.  Were  you  the  first  officer  who  organized  negro  regiments  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  prior  to  you  1 

A.  I  tliiiik  that  General  Butler  had  organized  some  in  New  Orleans.  Some 
were  organized  before  I  took  charge.  I  was  sent  down  on  the  Mississippi  and 
in  the  rebellious  States,  and  I  had  charge  of  all  of  them  there. 

Q.  What  number  of  regiments  were  organized  under  your  care  ? 

A.  I  organized  upwards  of  eighty  thousand  colored  sol  liers.  The  particu- 
lar number  of  regiments  I  do  not  recollect,  because  they  were  numbered  some 
with  those  in  New  Orleans  ami  some  \vith  those  in  the  east. 

Q.  After  that  service  was  performed  what  was  the  next  special  duty  you  were 
detailed  on  ? 

A.  I  returned  to  this  city  after  I  heard  of  the  surrender  of  Lee.  I  w:i3  then 
on  my  way  up  the  river.  I  came  to  Washington.  The  next  duty  I  was  placed 
upon  was  to  make  an  inspection  of  the  Provost  Marshal  Geneial's  office 
throughout  th(;  country,  first  at  Washington,  and  then  throughout  the  loyal 
States.     I  performed  that  service. 

Q.  What  next  ? 

A.  My  last  service  was,  I  was  ordered  throughout  the  United  States  to  exam- 
ine the  national  cemeteries  under  a  law  passed  by  Congress.  That  duty  I  have 
performed  ;  but  my  report  is  not  yet  in.  It  is  very  voluminous.  Those  are 
the  duties  that  I  have  performed. 

Q.  Did  those  duties  fall  under  your  proper  duties  as  Adjutant  General ;  and  in 
what  capacity  1 

A.  Perfectly  so.  As  Adjutant  General  I  am  ex  officio  inspector  of  the  army, 
and  these  duties  are  germane  to  it. 

Q.  This  duty  of  inspection  of  the  cemeteries  was  the  last  special  duty  that 
you  have  been  called  upon  to  perform  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  return  from  having  performed  that  last  special  duty  ? 

A.  I  came  to  Washington  on  three  different  occasions.  I  would  come  here 
and  then  would  go  back. 

Q.  When  did  you  return  from  this  last  duty  or  this  last  detail  upon  the 
national  cemetery  business  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  can  give  the  precise  date  ;  but  it  was  about  the  close  of 
last  year. 

Q.  Toward  the  close  of  the  year  1867  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  you  had  then  completed  this  last  duty  or  service  ? 

A.  I  had  visited  every  State  where  the  cemeteries  were.  The  only  ones  I 
have  not  visited  are  two  very  small  ones  near  this  city.     1  left  them  till  the  last. 

Q.  You  were  then  ready  to  make  your  report  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  writing  it  out,  and  would  have  had  it  ready  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  interruption  of  this  court.     It  is  nearly  completed. 

Q.  You  have  not  since  been  detailed  upon  any  other  special  service  except 
about  this  War  Department '( 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  was  engaged  in  making  tliis  re|)ort,  and  I  continued  on  that 
duty  until  I  was  placed  in  cliarge  of  the  At'.jutaut  General's  office. 

Q.   At  what  date  were  you  returned  to  your  Adjutant  General's  office? 

A.  The  President  sent  for  me  and  gave  me  a  note  to  General  (Jrant,  dated 
the  13th  of  February.  Geiu-ral  Grant's  note  to  me  in  answer  to  that,  putting 
me  in  charge;,  was  dated  the  next  day — the  14rh 

Q.  Who  had  occupied  your  office  during  your  absence? 

A.  General  E    D.  Townsend,  assistant  adjutant  general. 

Q.   Your  assistant'!* 

A.  My  first  assistant,  with  the  rank  of  colonel. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  417 

Q.  Then  you  never  lost  your  position  as  Adjutant  General? 

A.  Never, 

Q.  Did  you  apply  to  tbc  President  to  restore  you  ? 

A.  I  spoke  to  the  President  on  two  or  three  occasions,  some  months  ag'o, 
stating  that  when  I  got  through  this  particular  business  I  should  like  to  have 
charge  of  my  office.  He  knew  what  my  wishes  were;  but  on  this  occasion  I 
did  not  mention  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  I  wisli  to  object  in  limine  to  anjr 
conversation  between  this  person  and  the  President. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  This  is  his  application  to  the  President  that  I  am  trying  to 
prove,  to  be  restored  to  his  duty  as  Adjutant  General. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  object  to  that  fact;  but  I  do  not  want  this 
conversation. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  do  not  want  any  conversation  now.  (To  the  witness.)  You 
applied  once  or  twice  to  him  before  to  restore  you? 

A.  I  stated  that  that  was  my  wish. 

Q.  On  the  13th  of  February  you  received  the  order  which  you  had  reqiiested, 
before,  restoring  you  to  your  position  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  not  a  note  to  me;  it  was  a  note  to  General  Grant. 

Q.  But  that  note  restored  you  to  your  position  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  When,  after  that,  did  you  see  the  President,  and  what  did  he  say  to  you 
or  did  you  say  to  him  between  that  time  and  the  time  you  received  your  order 
on  the  21st? 

A.  On  one  occasion  I  went  over  to  take  him  some  resignations 

Q.  After  you  had  been  restored  to  your  office  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  some  resignations  that  Mr.  Stanton  gave  me  which  were  on  his 
table. 

Q.  To  take  over? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  occasion  on  which  the  President  spoke  to  you  about 
taking  possession  of  the  War  Office  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  I  object  to  that  question ;  it  is  lead- 
ing, and  so  grossly  leading,  in  my  judgment,  that  it  is  almost  intentional,  "  Was 
that  the  first  occasion  he  spoke  to  you?" — assuming  that  he  had  spoken. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  He  did  speak  afterward,  we  know. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  How  do  we  know  ? 

Mr.  Sta.mbery.  We  will  come  to  it  in  another  way.  (To  the  witness.)  Do 
you  recollect  what  occurred  on  the  21st  of  February  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  thought  your  question  was  anterior  to  that. 

Mr,  Stanbery.  It  was.  What  happened  in  the  War  Office  on  the  morning 
of  the  21st  of  February  in  regard  to  closing  the  office  on  the  succeeding  day, 
the  22d  ? 

A.  Toward  twelve  o'clock  I  went  up  myself  and  asked  Mr.  Stanton,  then 
Secretary  of  War,  if  I  should  close  the  office  the  next  day,  the  22d  of  Febru- 
ary, and  he  directed  me  to  do  it.  I  issued  such  a  circular  and  sent  it  around 
to  the  different  departments. 

Q.  Was  that  an  order  made  by  you  as  Adjutant  General  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  by  his  order. 

Q.  Was  that  before  you  had  seen  the  President  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  what  took  place  after  you  had  issued  that  order  ? 

A.  Very  soon  after  I  had  issued  it  I  received  a  note  from  Colonel  Moore,  the 
private  secretary  of  the  President,  that  the   President  wished  to   see  me.     I 
immediately  went  over  to  the  White  House,  and  saw  the  President.     He  came 
out  of  his  library  with  two  communications  in  his  hand. 
27  I  P 


418  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  He  came  out  with  two  papers  in  his  hand  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  He  haudecl  them  to  Colouul  3Ioore  to  read.  They  were  read 
to  me. 

Q.  Read  aloud  ? 

A.  Read  aloud.  One  was  addressed  to  Mr.  Stanton,  dismissing  hira  from 
office,  and  directing  him  to  turn  over  the  books,  papers,  iScc,  pertaining  to  the 
War  Department ;  the  other  was  addressed  tome  appointing  me  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim,  and  stating  that  i\Ir.  Stanton  had  been  directed  to  transfer  the 
office. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  time  you  saw  those  papers,  or  either  of  them  ? 

A.  The  first  time. 

Q.  You  had  no  hand  whatever  in  writing  those  papers  or  dictating  them  1 

A.  Nothing  whatever. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Excuse  me  ;  that  is  very  leading  again. 

Mr.  Stamberv.  Well.  (To  the  witness.)  AVhat  was  said  by  the  President 
at  that  time  to  3'ou  or  by  you  to  the  President  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Do  you  propose  to  put  in  conversations 

Mr.  Stanberv.  I  do. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Between  this  party  and  the  President  ? 

Mr.  Staxbery.  Right  there,  certainly.     (Handing  him  the  papers  ) 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Which  they  put  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  not  interpose  the  objection  here,  sir. 
By  Mr.  Stanberv  : 

Q.  What,  then,  was  said  between  you  and  the  President  ? 

A.  He  said  he  was  determined  to  support  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  and 
ihe  desired  me  to  do  the  same.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  object. 

The  Witness.  I  told  him  I  would. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  What  further  took  place  or  was  said  ? 

A,  He  then  directed  me  to  deliver  this  paper  addressed  to  Mr.  Stanton  to  him. 

Q.  Was  that  all  ?     Did  you  then  leave  1 

A.  I  told  him  that  I  would  take  an  officer  in  my  department  with  me  to  see 
"that  I  delivered  it  and  note  what  occurred,  and  I  stated  that  I  would  take 
'General  Williams. 

Q.  Who  is  General  Williams  1 

A.  One  of  the  assistant  ailjutant  generals  in  my  department  on  duty  there. 

Q.  You  told  the  President  you  would  take  him  along  to  witness  the  transac- 
itioa  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then  ? 

A.  I  Avent  over  to  the  War  Department,  went  into  one  of  my  rooms,  and 
told  General  Williams  I  wished  him  to  go  with  me  ;  1  did  not  say  for  what  pur- 
pose. I  told  him  I  wanted  him  to  go  with  me  to  the  Secretary  of  War  and  note 
what  occurred. 

Q,.  Without  telling  him  what  it  was  you  intended  ? 

A.  I  did  not  tell  him  anytliing  about  it.  I  then  went  to  the  Secretary's  room 
and  handed  him  the  first  jiaper. 

Q.  When  you  say  the  first  paper,  which  was  that  ? 

A.  The  paper  addressed  to  him. 

Q.  What  took  place  then  ?     Did  he  read  it  ? 

A.  He  got  up  when  I  came  in,  and  wo  bade  good  morning  to  each  other,  and 
I  handed  him  tliat  paper,  and  he  put  it  down  on  the  corner  of  his  table  and  sat 
down.     Presently  lie  got  up  and  opened  it  and  read  it,  and  he  then  said,  "  Do 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PRESIDENT.  419 

jon  wish  me  to  vacate  the  office  at  once,  or  will  you  give  mc  time  to  remove  my 
private  property  V     I  said,  ''Act  your  pleasure." 

Q.  Did  he  say  what  time  he  would  require  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  ask  him.  I  then  handed  him  the  paper  addressed  to 
me,  which  he  read,  and  he  asked  me  to  give  him  a  copy. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  ? 

A.  In  the  mean  time  General  Grant  came  in,  and  I  handed  it  to  him.  Gen- 
eral Grant  asked  nie  if  that  was  for  him.  1  said  no  ;  merely  for  his  information. 
I  promised  a  copy,  and  I  went  down. 

Q.  Down  where  ?     To  your  office  ? 

A.  Into  my  own  room. 

Q.  Your  own  room  is  below  that  of  the  Secretary ;  on  the  first  floor  ? 

A.  Below  General  Schriver's  room — the  one  opposite  the  Secretary's. 

Q.  It  is  on  the  lower  floor  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  went  down  and  made  a  copy  of  the  order  ? 

A.  I  had  a  copy  made,  which  I  certified  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  intnim.  I 
took  that  up  and  handed  it  to  him.  He  then  said,  "  I  do  not  know  whether  I 
will  obey  your  instructions  or  whether  I  will  resist  them."  Nothing  more 
passed  of  any  moment,  and  I  left. 

Q.  Was  General  Grant  there  at  the  second  interview  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  Secretary  was  alone,  then  ? 

A.  He  was  alone.  His  son  may  have  been  there,  because  he  was  generally 
in  the  room. 

Q.  Did  General  Williams  go  up  with  you  the  second  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  of  the  day  was  this  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  12  o'clock  that  I  went  up  to  see  the  Secretary,  and 
this  v.'as  just  after  I  came  down  and  wrote  the  order — it  was  toward  1  o'clock, 
I  suppose. 

Q.  It  was  immediately  after  you  had  written  the  order  to  close  the  office  1 

A.  Yes;  I  got  the  note  immediately  after  from  Colonel  Moore. 

Q.  Was  that  all  that  occurred  between  you  and  the  Secretary  on  that  day, 
the  21st? 

A.  I  think  it  was.  [After  a  pause.]  No,  no;  I  was  confounding  the  22d 
with  the  21st. 

Q.  What  further  ? 

A.  I  went  into  the  other  room  and  he  was  thei'e,  and  I  said  that  I  should 
issue  orders  as  Secretary  of  War.  He  said  that  I  should  not ;  he  would 
countermand  them,  and  he  turned  to  General  Schriver  ani  also  to  General 
Townsend,  who  were  in  the  room,  and  directed  them  not  to  obey  any  orders 
coming  from  me  as  Secretary  of  War. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Do  I  understand  that  this  was  the  21st  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  the  21st. 
By  Mr.  Sta.\bery  : 

Q.  The  22dor  21st? 

A.  The  2 1st,  I  think.  What  brings  it  to  my  mind  is,  he  wrote  a  note  which 
he  hand'.'d  me  prohibiting  me  from  acting  ou  the  subject. 

Q.  Have  you  got  that  note  1 

A.  I  think  I  gave  it  to  you.  I  have  some  here;  probably  it  may  bo  among 
them.     I  will  look.     The  note  is  dated  February  21 ;   I  know  that."' 

Q  (Presenting  a  paper  to  the  witness.)  See  if  that  is  the  order  that  he  then 
gave  you  ? 


420  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  That  is  it. 

Q.  I  see  the  body  of  it  is  not  in  Mr.  Stanton's  handwriting  1 
A.  He  dictated  it  to  General  Townsend.     That  is  his  handwriting.     A  copy 
was  made  of  it,  and  Mr.  Stanton  signed  it,  and  handed  it  to  me. 
Q.  Will  you  read  it,  if  jon  please  ? 

A.  "War  Department,  Washington  city,  February  21,  186S" 

Mr.  ]\[anager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment,  if  you  please.  Let  us  see  that  paper. 
(The  paper  Avas  thereupon  handed  to  the  managers  and  examined  by  them.) 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  Stanbery,  (to  the  witness.)  Now  read  it,  if  you  please,  general. 
The  witness  read  as  follows  : 

War  Department, 

Washington  City,  February  2],  1868. 
Sir:  I  am  informed  that  you  presume  to  issue  orders  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim. 
Such  conduct  and  orders  are  illegal,  and  you  are  hereby  commanded  to  abstain  from  issuing 
any  orders  other  thau  in  your  capacity  as  Adjutant  General  of  the  army. 
Your  obedient  servant, 

EDWIN  M.  STANTON, 

Secretary  of  If'ar, 
Brevet  Major  General  L.  Thomas,  Adjutant  General. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  President  after  that  interview  ? 

A.   I  did. 

Q.  What  took  place  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  object  now,  Mr.  President  and  senators,  to  the 
conversation  between  the  President  and  General  Thomas,  Up  to  this  time  I 
did  not  object,  as  you  observed,  upon  reflection,  to  any  orders  or  directions 
which  the  President  gave,  or  any  conversation  had  between  the  President  and 
General  Thomas  at  the  time  of  issuing  the  commission.  But  now  the  commis- 
sion has  been  issued;  the  demand  has  been  made  ;  it  has  been  refused  ;  and  a 
peremptory  order  given  to  General  Thomas  to  mind  his  own  business  and  keep 
out  of  tlie  War  Office  has  been  put  in  evidence.  Now,  I  suppose  that  the 
President,  by  talking  with  General  Thomas,  or  General  Thomas  by  talking 
with  the  President,  cannot  put  in  his  own  declarations  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing evidence  in  favor  of  himself.  The  Senate  has  already  ruled  by  solemn  vote, 
and  in  consonance,  I  believe,  with  the  opinion  of  the  presiding  officer,  that  there 
were  such  evidences  of  common  intent  between  these  two  parties  as  to  allow  us 
to  put  in  the  acts  of  each  to  bear  upon  the  other  ;  but  I  challenge  any  authority 
that  can  be  shown  anywhere  that,  in  trying  a  man  for  an  act  before  any  tribu- 
nal, Avhether  a  judicial  court  or  any  other  body  of  triers,  testimony  can  be 
given  of  what  the  respondent  said  in  his  own  behalf,  and  especially  to  his  ser- 
vant, and  a  fortiori  to  his  co-conspirator.  A  conspiracy  being  alleged,  can  it  be 
that  the  I'rcsident  of  the  United  States  can  call  up  any  officer  of  the  army,  and, 
by  talking  to  him  after  the  act  has  been  done,  justify  the  act  which  has  been 
done  ? 

The  act  which  we  complain  of  was  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  the 
appointment  of  Mr.  Thomas.  I'hat  has  been  done ;  that  is,  if  he  cm  be  removed 
at  all.  I  understand  the  argument  just  presented  to  us  by  the  learned  counsel 
who  is  absent,  after  having  delivered  his  argununt,  is,  that  there  was  no  removal 
at  all,  and  no  appointment  at  all.  Then,  of  course,  if  there  was  not,  there  has 
not  been  anything  done;  we  might  as  well  stop  here.  Ass^uming,  however,  the 
correctness  of  another  jiart  of  his  argument,  to  wit,  that  the  only  power  of 
removal  remained  in  the  I'residcnt  or  in  the  President  and  the  Senate — assuming 
that  to  be  true,  and  therefore  that  he  could  not  be  quite  right  in  liis  idea  tliat 
the  c^uestion  of  removal  depended  upon  ]\Ir.  Stanton's  legs  in  walking  out, 
because  everything  had  been  done  but  that — assuming  tliat  that  portion  of  his 
argument  is  the  better  one,  we  insist  that  there  was  a  removal,  there  was  au 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  421 

appointment,  and  tliat  is  the  act,  at  any  rate,  which  is  being  inquired  about ;  for 
whatever  the  character  of  that  act  is,  there  is  the  end,  be  it  better  or  worse. 

But  after  that  act  I  mean  to  say  that  Mr.  Thomas  cannot  make  evidence  for 
himself  by  going  and  talking  with  the  President,  nor  the  President  with  Mr. 
Thomas.  Even  supposing  that  the  act  was  as  innocent  a  thing  as  a  conspiracy 
to  get  up  a  lawsuit,  after  the  conspiracy  had  taken  place  and  it  had  eventuated 
in  the  act,  then  they  could  not  put  in  their  declarations.  True,  there  is  not 
much  evidence  of  any  such  conspirac}',  because  I  should  suppose  that  if  the 
President  meant  to  conspire  with  anybody  to  get  up  a  lawsuit  he  would  have 
conspired  with  his  Attorney  General,  and  not  his  Adjutant  General.  He  is  a 
queer  person  with  whom  to  make  a  conspiracy  to  get  up  a  lawsuit.  But  even  a 
thing  so  innocent  as  that,  after  it  was  done,  could  not  be  ameliorated,  defended, 
altered,  or  changed  by  the  declarations  of  the  parties,  one  to  the  other.  There- 
fore, in  limine,  I  must  object ;  and  I  need  not  go  &x\y  further  now  than  object 
to  any  evidence  of  what  the  President  says,  which  is  not  a  part  of  the  thing 
done,  a  part  of  the  res  gestce,  any  conversation  which  takes  place  after  the  thing 
done,  after  the  act  of  which  we  complain. 

;Mr.  Staabery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  if  I  understand  the  case  as  the  gentle- 
man supposes  it  to  be  now,  the  whole  case  depends  upon  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Stanton. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  not  said  any  such  thing.  I  do  not  know 
what  you  understand. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  You  say  the  transaction  stops  with  issuing  the  order  for  his 
removal. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  transaction  stops. 

Mr  Stanbery.  Does  not  yx>ur  conspiracy  stop  ?  Does  not  your  case  stop? 
That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  agree  myself  that  your  case  stops  with  that  order,  because 
I  agree  with  what  now  seems  to  be  the  view  taken  by  the  honorable  manager, 
that  that  did  in  fact  remove  Mr.  Stanton  per  se.  If  it  did,  it  was  the  law  that 
gave  it  that  effect ;  for  there  is  no  question  about  a  removal  merely  in  fact,  no 
question  about  an  actual  ouster  by  force  here ;  but  it  is  a  question  of  a  legal 
removal,  and  that  we  are  upon ;  and  I  now  understand  the  honorable  manager 
to  say  that  that  order,  according  to  his  judgment,  effected  a  legal  removal,  and 
it  was  not  necessary  for  Mr.  Stanton's  legs  to  move  him  out  of  office ;  he  was 
already  out  by  the  order.  If  Mr.  Stanton  was  out  by  the  order,  the  lo;arned 
managers  are  also  out  by  the  order,  for  then  it  must  be  a  legal  order,  making  a 
legal  removal,  not  a  forcible,  illegal  ouster. 

But,  says  the  learned  manager,  the  transaction  ended  in  giving  the  order  and 
receiving  the  order,  and  you  are  to  have  no  testimony  of  what  was  said  by  the 
President  or  General  Thomas  except  what  was  said  just  then,  because  that  was 
the  transaction  ;  that  was  the  res  gesUe.  Does  the  learned  gentleman  forget  his 
testimony  ?  Does  he  forget  how  he  attempted  to  make  a  case?  Does  he  tbrget, 
not  what  took  place  in  the  afternoon  between  the  President  and  General  Thomas 
that  we  are  now  going  into,  but  what  took  place  that  night  ?  Does  he  forget 
what  sort  of  a  case  he  attempts  to  make  against  the  President,  not  at  the  time 
when  that  order  was  given,  nor  before  it  was  given,  nor  in  the  afternoon  of  the 
21st,  but  under  his  conspiracy  counts,  the  managers  have  undertaken  to  give  in 
evidence  that  on  the  night  of  the  21st  General  Thomas  declared  that  he  was 
going  to  enter  the  War  Office  by  force  ? 

That  is  the  matter  charged  as  illegal ;  and  the  articles  say  that  the  conspiracy 
between  General  Thomas  and  the  President  was  that  the  order  should  be  exe- 
cuted by  the  exhibition  of  force,  intimidation,  and  threats ;  and  to  prove  that 
what  has  he  got  here  ?  The  declarations  of  General  Thomas,  not  made  under 
oath,  as  we  propose  to  have  them  made,  but  his  mere  declarations,  when  the 


422  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

President  was  absent  and  could  not  contradict  liim — not,  as  now,  under  oatli, 
and  all  the  conversation  when  the  ]^rcsident  was  present  and  could  contradict 
or  might  admit.  The  honorable  manager  has  gone  into  all  that  to  make  a  case 
against  the  President  of  conspiracy ;  and  not  merely  that,  hut  proves  the  acts 
and  declarations  of  General  Thomas  on  the  22d  ;  and  not  only  that,  but  as  late 
as  the  9th  of  March,  at  the  presidential  levee  brings  a  witness,  with  the  eyes  of 
all  Delaware  upon  him,  [laughter,]  and  proves  by  that  witness,  or  thinks  he  has 
proved,  that  on  that  night  General  Thomas  also  made  a  declaration  involving 
the  President  in  this  conspiracy,  as  a  party  to  a  conspiracy  still  existing  to  keep 
Mr.  Stanton  out  of  office. 

Now,  how  are  we  to  defend  against  these  declarations  made  on  the  night  of 
the  21st  or  the  22d,  and  again  as  late  as  the  9th  of  March?  Does  not  the 
transaction  run  through  all  that  time  ?  How  is  the  President  to  defend  himself 
if  he  is  allowed  to  introduce  no  proof  of  what  he  said  to  General  Thomas  after 
the  date  of  the  order  ?  May  he  not  call  General  Thomas  ?  Is  General  Thomas 
impeached  here  as  a  co-couspirator  1  Is  his  mouth  shut  by  a  prosecution  1 
Not  at  all.  He  is  free  as  a  witness — brought  here  and  swprn.  Now,  what 
better  testimony  can  we  have  to  contradict  this  alleged  conspiracy  than  the 
testimony  of  one  of  the  alleged  conspirators ;  for  if  General  Thomas  did  not 
conspire,  certainly  the  President  did  not  conspire.  A  man  cannot  consjiire  by 
himself.  And  now  vre  contradict  by  this  testimony,  and  have  a  right  to  con- 
tradict by  this  testimony,  what  was  stated  on  the  night  of  the  21st.  Here  is  an 
interview  on  the  afternoon  of  the  21st.  We  want  to  show  that  not  only  at 
twelve  o'clock  on  the  day  when  he  received  the  order  the  President  gave  him 
no  instructions,  no  orders,  and  made  no  agreement  to  use  force ;  but  that  at  the 
subsequent  meeting  in  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  when  General  Thomas  returned 
to  report  to  the  President  that  Mr.  Stanton  refused  to  surrender  the  office,  the 
President  still  gave  no  directions  and  entered  into  no  conspiracy  of  force ;  and 
that  accordingly  on  the  night  of  the  21st,  when  General  Thomas  spoke  of  his 
own  intentions,  he  had  no  authority  to  speak  for  the  President ;  and  he  did  not 
prof'iss  to  speak  for  him. 

It  is  in  this  point  of  view,  if  the  court  please,  that  it  seems  to  me  this  is  the 
very  best  testimony  we  can  give,  and  the  most  legal  and  admissible.  It  is  not 
after  the  transaction  is  ended  ;  it  is  not  after  the  proof  on  the  other  side  is 
ended  as  to  the  conspiracy;  but  it  is  long  before  the  time  when,  according  to 
their  proof,  the  conspiracy  ceased.  In  that  point  of  view,  we  claim  that  it  is 
perfectly  legal. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  Mr.  President,  I  think  I  must  have  made  myself 
very  illy  understood  if  what  I  said  has  been  fairly  met  or  attempted  to  be  met 
by  the  learned  counsel.  This  is  my  objection  :  not  that  they  shall  not  prove 
by  Mr.  Thomas  that  he  did  not  say  what  Ave  proved  that  he  said  to  ]Mr.  Bur- 
leigh ;  he  will  be  a  bold  man  to  say  he  did  not  s;iy  it,  however ;  not  that  they 
shall  not  prove  that  he  did  not  say  what  we  proved  he  said  to  Mr.  Karsuer, 
although  1  should  think  my  leai-ned  friend  had  had  enough  of  Mr.  Karsner ; 
not  that  they  shall  not  show  any  fact  which  is  competent  to  be  shown  ;  but  the 
proposition  I  make  as  a  legal  proposition,  (and  if  has  not  been  met  nor  touched 
by  the  arguinent,)  is  that  it  is  not  competent  to  show  that  Mr.  Thomas  did  not 
say  to  Mr.  Burleigh  that  hi;  mi^ant  to  use  force,  by  proving  what  was  said 
between  Mr.  Thomas  and  the  J'resident  ;  that  the  President  cannot  put  in  his 
declaration  ;  and  I  challcMige  again  a  law  book  to  be  brought  in  before  this  Sen- 
ate— common  law,  parliamentary  law,  constitutional  \•,\^v,  statute  law,  or  ''law 
unto  ours(dvc8" — any  law  that  was  ever  heard  of,  in  which  any  such  proposition 
was  ever  held.  It  never  was  held,  sir.  Go  to  your  own  reading  ;  tell  me  of 
the  case  where  after  we  show  that  a  man  has  done  an  act,  which  act  is  com- 
plained of,  when  he  is  on  trial  for  that  act,  he  can  bring  his  servant,  his  co-con- 
spirator,  and  show  what  he  said  to  his  servant  and  his  servant  to  him,  in  order 


IMPEACHMENT    OP   THE    PRESIDENT.  423 

to  his  justification,  "What  tliief  couhl  not  defend  himself  by  that,  what  mur- 
derer could  not  defend  himself  by  that — show  what  he  said,  the  one  to  the 
other,  and  the  other  to  the  one  after  the  thing  has  happened,  after  the  act  has 
been  done  ? 

Now,  it  is  said,  as  though  this  case  was  to  be  carried  on  by  some  little  snap- 
catch  of  a  word,  that  I  said  there  was  a  removal,  and,  therefore,  I  must  have 
said  it  was  a  legal  removal.  I  say  there  never  was  a  legal  removal  of  Mr. 
Stanton.  There  was  an  act  of  removal  so  far  as  the  Pre><ident  of  the  United 
States  could  exercise  the  power,  so  far  as  he  could  do  it,  so  far  as  he  is  crimi- 
nally responsible  for  it,  so  far  as  lie  must  be  held  to  every  intendment  of  the 
consequences  of  it  as  much  as  though  Mr.  Stanton  had  gone  out  in  obedience 
to  it ;  because  who  is  the  President  ?  He  is  the  Chief  Executive,  and  has  the 
army  and  the  uavy,  and  has  issued  an  order  to  one  officer  of  the  army  to  take 
possession. 

But,  senators,  I  am  not  now  insisting  that  the  President  shall  not  ask  Mr. 
Thomas,  "  Sir,  did  you  conspire  V  I  am  content  they  shall  ask  him  that,  and 
I  will  ask  him  in  return,  "Did  you  conspire  with  the  President;  did  you  do 
this,  or  did  you  do  ihati"  But  my  proposition  is,  that  they  cannot  put  ui  what 
the  President  said  to  Thomas,  or  what  Thomas  said  to  the  President  after  he 
had  given  the  order.  The  learned  counsel  says,  "  Why  these  gentlemen  mana- 
gers have  put  in  what  Mr.  Thomas  said  all  along,  and  what  the  President  said 
all  along."  I  understand  that ;  so  we  can.  It  is  the  commonest  thing  in  all 
courts  of  justice  where  I  have  seen  cases  tried — and  where  I  have  not,  the  books 
are  all  one  way  upon  that  matter — it  is  the  commonest  thing  on  earth  to  put  in 
the  confession  of  a  criminal  made  clear  down  to  the  time  of  the  trial,  down  to 
the  hour  of  the  trial.  Is  it  not  ?  If  he  makes  a  confession  the  moment  the 
officer  is  bringing  him  and  putting  him  into  the  dock,  it  may  be  used  against 
him.  But  who  ever  heard  that  it  gave  the  prisoner  the  right  to  introduce  what 
he  said  to  his  associate,  what  he  said  to  his  servant,  what  he  said  to  his  neigh- 
bor, after  the  act  was  done,  be  the  act  whatever  it  may  1 

It  is  said  you  mxist  allow  him  to  put  this  in  because  the  Pi'esident  cannot  de- 
fend himself  otherwise.  He  has  all  the  facts  to  defend  liimself  with.  What  I 
mean  to  say  is  that  he  shall  not  defend  himself  by  word  of  mouth.  I  do  not 
claim  that  the  conspiracy  was  made  between  the  21st  of  February  and  the  9th 
of  March.  I  claim  that  it  was  made  before  that  time  ;  and  I  think  we  shall  be 
able,  before  we  get  through,  to  convince  everybody  else  of  it.  I  claim  that  we 
find  certain  testimony  of  it  between  these  two  dates. 

Now,  understand  me.  I  do  not  object  to  asking  Mr.  Thomas  what  he  said  to 
Mr.  Burleigh,  what  he  said  to  Mr.  Wilkeson,  what  he  said  to  Mr.  Karsner, 
what  he  said  to  anybody,  where  we  have  put  in  what  he  said  ;  but  I  do  object 
to  his  putting  in  any  more  of  the  President's  declarations  after  the  act  done.  I 
do  not  want  any  more  such  exhibitions  as  this.  When  a  simple  order  is  given 
by  the  President  to  his  suborditiate,  a  very  harmless  thing,  quite  in  common 
course,  it  is  given  to  him  with  a  flourish  of  trumpets.  "  Now,  I  want  you  to 
sustain  the  Constitution  and  laws  ;"  and  the  ofHcer  says,  "  I  will  sustain  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws."  Do  we  not  understand  what  all  that  was  done  for  ]  It 
was  a  part  of  the  defence  got  up  there  at  the  time  ;  a  declaration  made  to  be 
put  in  here  before  you  or  before  some  court. 

Nobody  can  doubt  what  that  was  for.  Did  he  ever  give  any  other  order  to  Thomas 
or  any  other  officer  and  say  :  "  Now,  sir,  here  is  a  little  order,  and  I  want  you 
to  sustain  the  Constitution  and  laws;  I  am  going  to  sustain  the  Constitution  and 
laws,  and  you  must  sustain  the  Constitution  and  laws;"  and  then  solemnly  for 
that  officer  to  say,  "  I  will  sustain  the  Constitution  and  the  laws."  Did  you  ever 
hear  of  that  in  any  other  case  ?  Why  was  it  done  in  this  case  ?  It  was  done 
for  the  purpose  of  blinding  whatever  court  should  try  the  case,  in  order  that  it 
might  be  put  in  as  a  justification.     "  Oh  !  I  did  not  mean  to  do  anything  but 


424  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

sustain  l,lie  Constitution  and  the  laws,  and  I  said  so  at  the  time."  That  decla- 
ration was  put  in  out  of  the  usual  and  ordinary  course,  and  it  is  to  prevent  any 
more  of  that  sort  of  declarations,  got  up,  manufactured  hy  this  criminal  at  the 
time  when  he  was  going  into  his  crime  and  after  the  crime  was  committed,  that 
I  make  the  objection.  Under  such  circumstances  to  give  him  the  opportunity 
to  manufacture  testimony  in  this  way  never  was  heard  of  in  any  court  of  justice. 

Mr.  EvAKTs.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  if  the  crime,  as  it  is  called,  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  was  complete  when  this  written  order  was 
handed  by  him  to  General  Thomas,  and  received  by  General  Thomas,  why  have 
the  managers  occupied  your  attention  with  other  and  later  proceedings  in  his 
behalf  of  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton?  The  first,  the  only  act  in  regard  to 
that  removal,  which  the  managers  introduced,  was  of  the  22d  of  February,  and 
the  presentation  of  General  Thomas,  and  then  with  the  purpose,  as  it  was  said, 
of  forcibly  ejecting  Mr.  Stanton  from  the  otSce  of  Secretary  of  War.  That  is 
the  act — that  is  the  fact — that  is  the  res  gcsla  on  Avhich  they  stand;  and  it 
was  by  the  combination  of  the  delegate  from  Dakota,  invited  to  attend  and  take 
part  in  that  act  where  the  force  was  sought  to  be  brought  into  this  case  in  the 
intention  of  the  President  of  the  United  States;  and  then  the  evidence  con- 
necting the  intention  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  with  this  act,  this 
fact,  this  res  gesta  of  the  22d,  was  drawn  from  the  hearsay  evidence  of  what 
General  Thomas  had  said,  and  upon  the  pledge  of  the  managers  that  they  would 
connect  the  President  with  it. 

And  now,  in  the  presence  of  a  court  of  justice  and  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  the  managers  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  speaking  "  in  the  name  of 
all  the  people  of  the  United  States,"  object  when  we  seek  to  show  what  did 
occur  between  the  President  and  General  Thomas  up  to  the  time  of  the  only  act 
and  fact  they  introduced  on  the  22d  by  hearsay  evidence  of  General  Thomas's 
statements  of  what  he  meant  to  do.  They  sought  to  implicate  the  President  in 
the  intended  force  to  be  used  by  that  hearsay  testimony  upon  the  pledge  that 
they  would  connect  the  President  with  it;  and  we  oifer  the  evidence  that  we 
said  in  the  first  instance  should  have  been  brought  here  under  oath  of  this  agent 
or  actor  himself  to  prove  what  the  connection  of  the  President  was.  When  that 
hearsay  has  been  let  in,  secondary  evidence,  and  we  undertake  to  show  by  the 
oath  of  the  actor,  the  agent,  the  officer,  what  really  occurred  between  him  and 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  they  say  that  is  of  no  consequence,  that  is 
no  part  of  the  res  gestce,  and  that  is  no  part  of  evidence  showing  what  the  rela- 
tion between  the  parties  was.  Why,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  if  the 
learned  managers  had  objected  that  General  Thomas  was  not  to  be  received  as  a 
witness  because  he  was  a  co-conspirator,  a  co-criminal,  some  of  the  observations 
of  the  learn^'d  manager  might  have  some  aj)i)lication  ;  but  that  is  not  the  aspect, 
and  that  is  not  the  claim  in  which  the  matter  is  presented  to  your  notice.  It  is 
that  General  Thomas  being  a  competent  witness  to  speak  the  truth  here  as  to 
Avhatever  is  pertinent  to  this  case,  is  not  to  be  permitted  to  say  what  was  the 
agency,  what  was  the  instruction,  what  was  the  concomitant  observation  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  that  attended  every  interview  antecedent  to  the 
time  which  they  have  put  in  evidence. 

So,  too,  they  have  sought  to  give  evidence  of  intent,  gathered  from  a  witness 
who  overheard  what  General  Thomas  said,  pertinent,  as  they  supposed,  on  the 
9th  of  IMarch,  and  that  is  upon  the  idea  that  General  Thomas  had  been  em- 
powered by  the  President  to  say  or  do  something  that  made  his  statements  perti- 
nent to  commit  the  President.  Now,  if  they  can  show,  through  General  Thomas, 
by  hearsay,  what  they  claim  is  to  implicate  the  I'resident  in  intent,  running  up 
to  the  9th  of  March,  we  can  prove  by  General  Thom.is,  up  to  any  date  in  respect 
to  which  they  ofiered  evidence,  all  that  did  occur  between  the  President  and 
himself,  in  order  that  if  there  be  connection,  that  may  be  made  accurate  and 


IMPEACHMEXT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  425 

precise ;  and  if  there  be  no  connection,  that  the  disconnection  be  made  absolute 
and  complete. 

Mr.  Manager  Bi.\GHAI\i.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  desire,  to  the  right 
understanding  of  this  controversy,  that  the  question  to  which  my  associate  man- 
ager objected  may  be  reported  by  the  Secretary. 

The  Chief  Jlstice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  the  qunstiou  to  writing. 
The  question  was  reduced  to  writing,  and  read  as  follows  : 

AVliat  occurred  between  the  Presitlent  and  yourself  at  that  second  interview  on  the  21st? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  The  senators  will  notice  that  the  attempt  is  now 
made  for  the  first  time  in  the  progress  of  this  trial,  and  I  think  is  made  here  for 
the  first  time  in  the  presence  of  any  tribunal  of  justice  in  this  country  by 
respectable  counsel,  to  introduce  in  the  defence  of  an  accused  criminal  his  own 
declarations  made  after  the  fact.  Before  this  second  interview  referred  to  in  the 
question  the  crime  charged  in  the  first  article,  if  crime  it  be,  was  committed  and 
complete.  The  time  has  not  yet  come,  senators,  for  the  full  discussion  of  the 
question,  whether  it  wjis  a  crime  for  Andrew  Johnson,  on  the  21st  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, ISGS,  with  intent  to  violate  the  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil 
offices,  to  issue  an  order  for  the  removal,  as  averred  in  the  first  article — not  "re- 
moving" as  counsel  stated,  but  "for  the  removal  of" — the  Secretaiy  of  War 
from  the  Department  of  War  not  only  in  contravention  of  the  express  terms  of 
that  act  itself,  but  in  defiance  of  the  action  of  the  Senate  then  had  upon  the 
suspension  under  the  same  law,  by  the  same  President,  of  the  same  Secretary, 
and  whereof  he  had  notice.  For  myself,  I  stand  ready,  as  the  learned  counsel 
has  seen  fit  to  make  the  challenge  in  this  stage  of  the  case,  to  say  that  if  the 
tenure-of- office  act  be  a  valid  act,  the  attempt  to  remove  in  contravention  of  the 
provisions  of  that  act  which  declares  a  removal  to  be  a  misdemeanor,  is  itself  a 
misdemeanor,  not  simply  at  common  law,  but  by  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 
I  am  not  surprised  that  this  utterance  was  made  at  this  s(age  of  the  case;  for 
the  learned  counsel  who  closed  his  elaborate  and  exhaustive  argument  in  the 
defence  had  ventured  upon  the  bold  declaration  here  in  the  presence  of  the  Sen- 
ate, tljat  an  attempt  to  commit  a  misdemeanor,  made  such  by  the  laws  of  any 
sovereignty  upon  the  earth,  was  not  itself  a  crime  consummated  by  the  very 
attempt,  and  itself  a  misdemeanor. 

I  pass  that  question  now ;  with  all  respect  I  say  it  ought  not  to  have  been 
referred  to  in  this  discussion.  The  only  question  before  the  Senate  is,  whether 
it  is  competent  for  an  accused  criminal,  hig-h  or  low,  official  or  unofficial,  President 
or  private  citizen,  after  the  fact  charged  against  him,  to  make  evidence  for  him- 
self by  his  own  declarations  either  to  a  co-conspirator  or  to  anybody  else.  That 
is  all  the  point  there  is  involved  in  this  question;  and  I  reiterate  what  was  said, 
doubtless  after  due  reflection,  by  my  associate  manager,  that  there  is  not  an 
authority  fit  to  be  brought  into  a  court  of  justice  but  deuounces  the  proposition 
as  hearsay  and  violative  of  the  rules  of  law.  Why,  justice  itself  is  impotent  if 
evidence  is  to  be  made  by  every  criminal  violator  of  the  law  for  himself,  after 
the  fact,  by  his  own  declarations. 

I  am  amazed  at  the  declaration  of  counsel  that  the  Senate  have  admitted 
hearsay  in  behalf  of  the  prosecution.  Senators  upon  reflection  can  assent  to  no 
such  proposition.  The  declaration  of  co-conspirators  made  in  the  prosecutioa 
of  the  common  purposes  or  common  design,  never  was  held  to  be  hearsay  evidence. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  primary  evidence,  and,  iu  the  languag'e  of  one  of  our  own 
courts,  in  most  instances  it  is  the  only  evidence  which  the  nature  of  the  case 
ever  admits  of.  It  rests  upon  the  simple  proposition  of  the  lav/,  which  addresses 
itself  to  the  common  judgment  and  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  that  what  one 
man  does  by  another  he  does  himself.  If  the  President  conspired  with  Lorenzo 
Thomas  to  violate  the  laws  of  this  country,  and  by  his  written  letter  of  authority 
sent  him  forth  to  violate  the  law,  he  made  him  his  agent,  and  in  the  language  of 
the  law,  whatever  Lorenzo  Thomas  did  in  the  prosecution  of  that  agreement  to 


426  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

do  an  unlawful  act  between  liim.?olf  anfl   the  President  is  evidence  not  simply 
against  bimself,  but  against  bis  principal. 

It  is  the  law  of  this  country  and  oi"  every  other  country  where  the  common 
law  is  observed  ;  it  is  a  question  no  longer  open  i'or  discussion,  and  I  may  add 
that  the  question  that  is  raised  here  is  one  that  is  not  open  for  discussion,  for  I 
venture  to  say  that  every  text-book  that  treats  of  the  law  of  evidence  declares 
that  the  declarations  of  an  accused  after  the  fact  are  never  admissible  upon  his 
own  motion.  All  that  is  said  at  any  one  given  time,  when  any  part  of  what  is 
said  on  that  occasion  has  been  admitted  for  the  jirosecution,  is  admissible.  Bnt 
that  is  not  the  question  before  the  Senate  at  all.  This  is  a  subsequent  conver- 
sation between  himself  and  bis  co-conspirator  after  his  crime  was  complete,  after 
he  had  sent  forth  his  letter  of  authority  to  Thomas,  after  he  had  issued  the  order 
for  the  removal  of  Stanton,  after  the  demand  had  been  made  l)y  Thomas  for  the 
surrender  of  the  office.  On  the  evening  of  the  21st  day  of  February  there  is  a 
conversation  between  these  co-conspirators,  confessedly  conspirators  if  your  law 
be  valid,  upon  their  own  answer  before  the  Senate,  in  order  to  exculpate  them- 
selves. I  say  to  senators  that  it  is  trifling  with  justice,  trifling  with  that  justice 
which  was  this  day  invoked  in  your  presence,  to  allow  any  man  to  make  evidence 
in  this  manner  for  bimself,  after  the  fact. 

How  easy  it  was  for  him  to  say  to  Mr.  Thomas  that  night,  when  he  found  that 
inquiry  was  being  made  in  the  Capitol  touching  this  criminal  agreement  between 
them,  "  Why,  Mr.  Thomas,  our  only  object  is  peacefully  and  quietly  to  appeal 
to  the  courts  of  justice ;"  "  Why,  Mr.  Tiiomas,  you  must  not  touch  the  hair  of 
the  head  of  the  Secretary  of  War  ;"  "  Why,  Mr.  Thomas,  we  both  have  the 
profouudest  respect  for  the  decision  of  the  Senate  this  day  made,  notice  of  which 
has  been  served  upon  us ;"  "  Why,  Mr.  Thomas,  we  both  recognize  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  tenure-of-ollice  act ;"  "  Why,  Mr.  Thomas,  it  is  farthest  from  our 
intention  to  violate  the  act  at  all."  Sir,  the  law  declares  that  if  the  order  was 
unlawful,  the  unlawful  intent  laid  in  the  averment  is  proved  by  the  fact  itself, 
and  he  can  never  disprove  it  by  his  declarations.  Why,  then,  introduce  them 
here  ?  Why  trifle  with  justice  here  in  this  way  ?  The  rule  has  been  settled  in 
every  case  that  has  ever  been  tried  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  hereto- 
fore, that  the  general  rules  of  evidence  according  to  the  common  law  govern  the 
proceedings.  If  there  is  an  exception  to  be  found  to  that  in  any  of  the  rulings 
of  the  Senate  in  trials  of  this  kind  hitherto,  I  challenge  its  production. 
The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  once  more. 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Wliat  occurred  between  tlie  President  and  yourself  at  that  second  mtcrviow  on   the  2Ist? 
The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is,  is  the  question  just  read  admissible  ? 
Mr.  Drake.  On  that  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  ;  and  binng  taken,  resulted — yeas  42,  nays 
10  ;  as  follows  : 

Ykas — Messrs.  Anthony,  ]5ay;ird,  lUickiilevv,  Cattcll,  Cole,  Coiiklinp:,  Corbett,  Pavis, 
Dixon,  Dooiittlo,  Edmund's,  Ferry,  Fesseuden,  Fowler,  Frelinghnysen,  Grimes,  Henderson, 
Hendricks,  IFowc,  Joiuison,  McCreery,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vonnout, 
Jlurton,  Norton,  I'atterson  of  New  llampsliire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Pomeroy,  Koss, 
Sherman,  Sprajjue,  Stewart,  Sunnier,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  \Villey,'Wil- 
liams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — i'2. 

Nays — Messrs.  ('amcron.  Chandler,  Conness,  Cragiu,  Drake,  Harlan,  Howard,  Nye, 
Kanisey,  and  'JMiayer — JO. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Saulsbury  and  Wade — 2. 

So  the  Senate  determined  the  question  to  be  admissible. 
The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  will  be  read  to  the  witness. 
The  Secretary  read  the  question,  as  follows  : 

What  occurred  between  the  President  and  yourself  at  that  second  interview  on  the  21st? 
The  Witness.  I  stated  to  the  President  that  I  had  delivered  the  communi- 
cation, and  that  Mr.  Stanton  gave  this  answer  :  "  Do  you  wish  me  to  vacate  at 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  427 

once,  or  will  you  givo  me  time  to  takeaway  my  private  property  ?"  and  that  I 
replied,  "Act  your  pleai^ure."  I  then  paid  that  after  d(!livering  the  copy  of  the 
'  letter  to  him  he  said  :  "  I  do  not  know  whether  I  will  obey  your  instructions 
or  resist  them."  This  I  mentioned  to  the  President,  and  his  answer  was  :  "Very 
well ;  go  and  take  charge  of  the  office  and  perform  the  duties." 

By  Mr.  Sta.nbery: 

Q.  Was  that  all  that  passed  ? 

A.  That  is  about  all  that  passed  at  that  time. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  afternoon  was  that  ? 

A.  This  was  immediately  after  giving  the  second  letter  to  ^Ir.  Stanton. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  withdraw  all  objection  to  that  conversation. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Whether  you  do  or  not  it  is  in.  The  withdrawal  is  ex  post 
facto.     (To  the  witness.)     Was  this  before  or  after  you  got  Stanton's  orderly 

A.  It  was  after. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Stanton  again  that  afternoon  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Or  the  President  ? 

A.  Not  after  I  left  him  this  time. 

Q.  What  first  happened  to  you  the  next  morning  ? 

A.  The  first  thing  that  ha])pened  to  me  next  morning  was  the  appearance 
at  my  house  of  the  marshal  of  the  District,  with  an  assistant  marshal  and  aeon- 
stable,  and  he  arrested  me. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  morning  was  that  ? 

A.  About  eight  o'clock,  before  I  had  my  breakfast.  The  command  was  to 
appear  forthwith.  I  asked  if  he  would  permit  me  to  see  the  President ;  I  simply 
wanted  to  inform  him  that  I  had  been  arrested.  To  that  he  kindly  assented, 
though  he  said  he  must  not  lose  sight  of  me  for  a  moment.  I  told  him  certainly; 
I  did  not  wish  to  be  out  of  his  sight.  He  went  with  me  to  the  President's  and 
went  into  the  room  where  the  President  was.  I  stated  that  I  had  been  arrested, 
at  whose  suit  I  did  not  know 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  one  moment.  Does  the  presiding  officer  under- 
stand the  ruling  to  go  to  this,  to  allow  what  occurred  the  next  day  to  be 
brought  in  ? 

The  Chief  Justice    The  Chief  Justice  so  understands  it. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Go  on,  general. 

The  Witness.  He  said,  "  Very  well,  that  is  the  place  I  want  it  in — the 
courts."  He  advised  me  then  to  go  to  you,  and  the  marshal  permitted  me  to 
go  to  your  quarters  at  the  hotel.  I  told  you  that  I  had  been  arrested  and  asked 
what  I  should  do 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  suppose  it  is  no  great  matter  about  that. 

Mr.  Stanbeiiv,  (to  the  managers.)  Is  that  part  of  the  conspiracy  ? 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  no  doubt  of  it.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Stanbery,  (to  the  witness.)  Did  you  go  to  court  ? 

A.  I  was  presented  by  the  marshal  to  Judge  Cartter. 

Q.  What  happened  there  % 

A.  Judge  Cartter 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  object. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Were  you  held  to  bail  or  anything  of  that  kind  ? 

A.  I  was  required  to  give  bail  in  $5,000. 

Q.  And  then  discharged  from  custody] 

A.  I  was  then  discharged  ;  but  there  is  one  point  that  I  wish  to  state  if  it  is 


428  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

admisfiible  ;  I  do  not  kuow  whether  it  is  or  not.  I  asked  him  distinctly  what 
that  bail  meant 

Mr.  Manager  Bu'i'LER.  Stop. 

Mr.  Stanbkrv.  Do  you  mean  that  you  asked  the  judge? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  I  asked  the  judge  what  it  meant.     He  said ■ 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop.     Does  your  honor  allow  that  ? 

Mr.  Stand KUY.  That  is  another  part  of  the  case,  and  we  will  come  to  that 
after  a  while.     (To  the  witness.)     How  long  did  you  remain  there  1 

A.  I  suppose  it  took  altogether  perhaps  an  hour,  because  friends  came  in  to 
give  the  bail.     I  had  nobody  with  me,  not  even  a  lawyer. 

Q.  After  you  were  admitted  to  bail,  did  you  go  again  to  the  War  Department 
that  day  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  That  was  the  22d  1 

A.  I  am  speaking  of  the  22d  ;  but  I  think  this  other  matter  is  important  to  me. 
"Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  withdraw  the  objection  if  the  witness  thinks  it 
important  to  him. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Very  well ;  go  on  with  the  explanation  you  wished  to  make. 

The  Witness.  I  asked  the  judge  what  it  meant.  He  said  it  was  simply  to 
present  myself  there  at  half  past  ten  the  following  Wednesday.  I  then  asked 
him  if  it  suspended  me  from  any  of  my  functions.  He  said  no,  it  had  nothing 
to  do  with  them.     That  is  the  point  I  want  to  state. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  When  did  you  next  go  to  the  War  Department  that  day  ? 

A.  I  went  immediately  from  there,  first  stopping  at  the  President's  on  my 
way,  and  stating  to  him  that  I  had  given  bail.  He  made  the  same  answer, 
"Very  well;  we  want  it  in  the  courts."  I  then  went  over  to  the  War  Office, 
and  found  the  east  door  locked.  This  was  on  the  22d  the  office  was  closed.  I 
asked  the  messenger  for  my  key.  He  told  me  that  he  had  not  got  it;  the  keys 
had  all  been  taken  away,  and  my  door  was  locked.  I  then  went  up  to  Mr. 
Stanton's  room,  the  one  that  he  occupies  as  an  office,  where  he  receives.  I 
found  him  there  with  some  six  or  eight  gentlemen,  some  of  whom  I  recognized, 
and  1  understood  afterward  that  they  were  all  members  of  Congress.  They 
were  all  sitting  in  a  semi-ellipsis,  the  Secretary  of  War  at  the  apex.  I  came 
in  the  door.  1  stated  that  I  came  in  to  demand  the  office.  He  refused  to  give 
it  to  me,  and  ordered  me  to  my  room  as  Adjutant  General.  I  refused  to  obey. 
I  made  the  demand  a  second  and  a  third  time.  He  as  often  refused,  and  as 
often  ordered  me  to  my  room.  He  then  said,  "  You  may  stand  there  ;  stand  as 
long  as  you  please."  I  saw  nothing  further  was  to  be  done,  and  I  left  the  room 
and  went  into  General  Schriver's  oifice,  sat  down  and  had  a  chat  with  him,  he 
being  an  old  friend.  Mr.  Stanton  followed  me  in  there,  and  Governor  Moor- 
liead,  member  of  Congress  from  Pittsburg.  He  told  Governor  Moorhead  to  note 
the  conversation,  and  I  think  he  took  notes  at  a  side  table.  He  asked  me  pretty 
much  the  same  qu(;stions  as  before. 

Q.  State  what  he  did  ask. 

A.  AVhether  I  insisted  upon  acting  as  Secretary  of  War,  and  should  claim 
the  office.  I  gave  a  direct  answer,  "  Yes ;"  and  I  think  it  was  at  that  time  I 
said  I  should  also  require  the  mails.  I  said  that  on  one  occasion,  and  1  think 
then.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  on  the  memorandum  or  not.  Thou  there 
was  some  little  chat  with  the  Secretary  himself. 

Q.  Between  you  and  the  Secretary  '{ 

A,  Between  me  and  the  Secretary. 

Q.  Had  these  members  of  Congress  withdrawn  then  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  429 

Q.  Now,  tell  119  what  happened  between  you  and  the  Secretary  after  they 
withdrew. 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  what  first  occurred,  but  I  said  to  him,  "  The  next  time 
you  have  me  arrested  " — for  I  had  found  out  it  was  at  his  suit  I  was  arrested ; 
I  had  seen  the  paper 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  I  propose,  I^Ir.  President,  to  object 
to  the  conversation  between  the  Secretary  and  General  Thomas  at  a  time  which 
we  have  not  put  in,  because  we  put  in  only  the  conversation  while  the  other 
gentlemen  were  there.  This  is  something  that  took  place  after  they  had  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  What  is  the  difference  ?    They  did  not  stay  to  hear  the  whole. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  appears  to  have  been  immediately  afterward  and  part 
of  the  same  conversation. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  The  same  conversation  went  right  on. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Will  General  Thomas  say  it  was  the  same  conversa- 
tion ? 

The  Witness.  Mr.  Stanton  turned  to  me  and  got  talking  in  a  familiar  manner. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Go  on,  then,  sir. 

The  Witness.  I  said,  "  The  next  time  you  have  me  arrested,  please  do  not 
do  it  before  I  get  something  to  eat."  I  said  I  had  had  nothing  to  eat  or  drink 
that  day.  fie  put  his  hand  around  my  neck,  as  he  sometimes  does,  and  ran  his 
hand  through  my  hair,  and  turned  to  General  Schriver  and  said,  "  Schriver,  you 
have  got  a  bottle  here  ;  bring  it  out."     [Laughter.] 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  What  then  took  place  ? 

A.  Schriver  unlocked  his  case  and  brought  out  a  small  vial,  containing  I  sup- 
pose about  a  spoonful  of  whiskey,  and  stated  at  the  same  time  that  he  occasion- 
ally took  a  little  for  dyspepsia.  [Laughter.]  Mr.  Stanton  took  that  and  poured 
it  into  a  tumbler  and  divided  it  equally  and  we  drank  it  together. 

Q.  A  ftiir  division  ] 

A.  A  fair  division,  because  he  held  up  the  glasses  to  the  light  and  saw  that 
they  each  had  about  the  same,  and  we  each  drank.  [Laughter.]  Presently  a 
messenger  came  in  with  a  bottle  of  whiskey,  a  full  bottle  ;  the  cork  was  drawn, 
and  he  and  I  took  a  drink  together.  "  Now,"  said  he,  ''  this  at  least  is  neutral 
ground."     [Laughter] 

Q.  Was  that  all  the  force  exhibited  that  day  1 

A.  That  was  all, 

Q.  Have  you  ever  at  any  time  attempted  to  exercise  any  force  to  get  into 
that  office  1 

A   At  no  time. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  instructions  or  directions  from  the  President  to 
use  force,  intimidation,  or  threats  at  any  time '{ 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Wait.  "At  any  time?"  That  would  bring  it  down  to 
to-day.  I  suppose  the  ruling  did  not  come  down  to  to-day.  Any  time  prior  to 
the  21st  or  22d  of  February  I  am  content  with  your  inquiring  about,  but  I  still 
must  object  to  putting  in  what  was  said  yesterday. 

Mr.  Stanbeuy.  On  the  9th  of  March  you  say  it  still  continued. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  9th  of  March? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Then  we  will  inquire  prior  to  the  9th  of  March. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  said  nothing  about  that.  I  say  the  9th  of 
March  is  just  as  bad  as  it  would  be  to-day.  I  object  to  any  time  after  the  act. 
He  was  impeached  on  the  22d  of  February,  and  1  suppose  got  up  his  case  after 
that. 

Mr.  Evarts.  We  have  a  right  to  negative  up  to  the  point  at  which  you  have 
given  any  positive  evidence,  which  is  the  9th  of  March. 


430  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  given  no  evidence  of  what  the  President  has 
said  or  the  instrnctions  that  came  from  the  President.  We  have  given  evidence 
of  what  Mr.  Thomas  has  said,  and  that  is  entirely  a  different  thing.  You  may 
ask  him  if  he  said  so  to  Mr.  Karsener  ;  but  if  there  is  anything  in  any  rule  of 
law,  if  law  is  to  he  held  at  all,  this  testimony  cannot  be  put  in. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  the  point,  if  anything,  by  which  Mr.  Karsener 
was  allowed  to  speak  of  the  interview  between  General  Thomas  and  himself  of 
the  9th  of  ]\[arch  was  that  General  Thomas's  statements  then  made  might  be 
held  to  be  either  from  something  that  had  been  proved  on  the  part  of  the 
managers,  or  from  something  that  would  be  proved  on  the  part  of  the  managers, 
a  committal  of  the  President.  Now,  certainly,  under  the  ruling  that  has  been 
made,  as  well  as  under  the  necessary  principles  of  law  and  justice,  the  President 
is  entitled  to  negative,  through  the  witness  who  knows,  anything  that  proceeded 
from  him,  the  witness,  as  brought  in  testimony  here,  as  having  been  authorized 
by  anything  that  occurred  between  the  President  and  himself. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  propose  to  argue  further.  If  it  is  not  self- 
evident  to  everybody,  no  argument  can  make  it  plainer.  I  simply  object  to  a 
question  which  is  this:  "What  have  been  the  directions  of  the  President  down 
to  the  9lh  of  March,"  after  he  had  been  impeached'?  Because,  if  he  can  put 
them  in  down  to  the  9th  of  March,  he  can  down  to  to-day;  and  to  prove  that 
Mr.  Karsener  did  not  say  a  thing  to  Mr.  Thomas  they  offer  to  prove  that  the 
President  did  not  say  a  thing  to  Mr.  Thomas. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  not  the  point.  The  point  is  not  that  we  can  show 
affirmatively  every  conversation,  but,  negatively,  we  can  show  up  to  and  includ- 
ing the  date  concerning  which  they  have  given  anything  in  evidence  by  which 
they  claim  to  implicate  the  President,  that  he  up  to  that  time  had  never  given 
any  instructions  or  declarations  justifying  the  use  of  force.  It  is  of  the  9th  of 
March  they  have  given  evidence  that  this  witness  then  meant  presently,  in 
futuro,  to  kick  Mr.  Stanton  out ;  and  now  we  propose  to  show  that  up  to  that 
conversation  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  never  given  authority  or 
direction  of  any  kind  to  use  force. 

Mr.  ]\Ianager  Butler.  How  does  that  prove  that  Mr.  Thomas  did  not  say  so? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  does  not  prove  it  in  the  least.  It  only  proves  that  he  said 
it  without  authority  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  which  is  the  whole 
point  of  your  point  of  proving  that  he  said  it  at  all. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  In  other  words,  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  say  the 
proposition  now  is  for  the  witness  to  swear  to  conclusions,  not  to  what  the 
President  did  say,  not  to  what  the  President  did  do,  but  to  his  conclusion  that 
all  he  said  and  all  he  did  did  not  authorize  him  to  use  force. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  will  reduce  the  (question 
to  writing,  if  they  press  it. 

The  question  being  reduced  to  writing  was  read,  as  follows : 

Did  the  President,  at  any  time  prior  to  or  includingr  tlio  9th  of  March.anthoiizo  or  direct 
you  to  use  force,  iutiniidation,  or  threats  to  get  possession  of  the  War  Otiice  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  this  question  to  the 
Senate.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  question  is  admissible  will  say 
"ay,"  and  those  of  the  contrary  opinion  will  say  "  no." 

The  question  being  put,  was  decided  to  be  admissible. 

Mr.  Stanrerv.  Answer  the  question,  now,  general. 

The  WiTNEf^s.  Read  it,  if  you  please. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question,  as  follows  : 

Did  the  President,  at  any  time  prior  to  or  including  the  9th  of  March,  authorize  or  direct 
you  to  use  force,  intimidation,  or  threats  to  get  possession  of  the  War  Office? 

The  Witness.  lie  did  not. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  431 

By  Mr.  Staxberv: 

Q.  Now  please  state  what  conversation  you  had  with  Mr.  Burleigh  on  the 
night  of  the  21st  of  February  .? 

A.  He  came  to  my  hou.se  and  asked  me  in  reference  to  this  matter  of  my 
being  appointed  Secretary  of  War.  I  told  him  I  was  appointed,  and  I  men- 
tioned what  occurred  between  Mr.  Stanton  and  myself,  and  I  thinlc  it  was  that 
which  led  him  to  ask  me  "What  are  you  going  to  dor"  Mr.  Stanton  having 
said  he  did  not  know  whether  he  would  obey  my  instructions  or  resist  them. 
There  are  two  persons  I  spoke  with.  To  one  I  said,  that  if  I  found  my  door 
locked,  or  if  I  found  the  War  Office  locked,  I  would  break  open  the  door ;  and 
to  the  other  1  said  I  would  call  upon  General  Grant  for  force.  I  have  got  them 
mixed  up  ;  I  do  not  know  which  expression  I  used  to  Mr.  Wilkeson,  but  one  to 
him  and  the  other  to  Dr.  Burleigh.  1  made  use  of  both  expressions  that  even- 
ing, however,  one  to  Mr.  Wilkeson  and  one  to  Dr.  Burleigh  ;  I  do  not  suppose 
it  mnkes  any  difference  which.  Their  testimony  shows  that  belter  than  mine. 
Mr.  Burleigh  asked  me  what  time  I  was  going  to  the  War  Office.  I  told  him  I 
■would  be  there  about  ten  o'clock  the  next  day.  This  was  the  night  of  the  21st 
I  was  talking  to  him.  The  conversation  was  a  short  one  ;  he  very  soon  left  me, 
saying  he  would  call  again.  I  think  he  said  he  would  come  up  to  the  War 
Office  the  next  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  to  go  ? 

A.  I  did  not.  I  think  he  said  he  would  come  and  see  the  fun,  or  something 
of  that  kind. 

Q,  What  was  the  conversation  you  had  with  Mr.  Karsener  on  the  9th  of 
March  ? 

A.  I  would  like  to  describe  that. 

Q.  What  do  you  know  of  Mr.  Karsner  ? 

A.  T  knew  nothing  about  him  whatever  until  I  had  seen  him  then.  If  I  had 
been  asked  the  question,  I  should  have  said  I  had  never  seen  him,  though  my 
attention  was  once  called  to  the  fact  that  I  did  once  see  him  in  the  spring  of 
1827,  when  I  happened  to  be  at  home  with  a  severe  spell  of  sickness.  I  did 
see  him  on  that  occasion.  I  suppose  there  were  circumstances  brought  it  to  my 
mind. 

Q.  What  took  place  at  the  President's  ? 

A.  It  was  towards  the  end  of  the  President's  reception,  and  I  was  walking 
with  General  Todd,  and  was  about  going  out  of  the  door  when  I  found  that  this 
person  rushed  forward  and  seized  me  by  the  hand.  I  looked  surprised,  because 
I  did  not  know  him.  He  mentioned  his  name,  but  I  could  not  recollect  it.  I 
understood  him  to  say  that  he  was  from  New  Castle,  my  native  village.  He 
certainly  used  both  those  words ;  but  he  says  he  did  not ;  it  is  possible  he  did 
not,  as  he  says  he  only  stated  that  he  was  from  New  Castle  county,  I  may  be 
mistaken  ;  I  do  not  want  to  do  him  injustice.  He  said  lie  knew  my  father  and 
my  brother,  and  that  he  had  known  me  forty  years  before.  I  suppose  that 
would  have  been  about  the  time  I  spoke  of;  but  I  have  no  recolhjction  of  it  at 
all.  He  held  on  to  my  hand.  I  was  surprised  at  the  man's  manner,  because  he 
came  up  to  me  as  if  I  had  been  an  intimate  relation  of  his  for  years. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  I  suppose  this  is  a  little  improper  to 
give  his  surprises.     Tell  us  what  was  done  and  stated  there. 

Mr.  Stan  BE  RY.  Go  on,  general. 

The  Witness.  I  tried  to  get  away  from  him,  and  he  then  said — he  was  a 
Delawarean — "  The  eyes  of  all  Delaware  are  upon  you,  [laughter,]  and  they 
expect  you  to  stand  fast."  I  said  :  "  Certainly  I  shall  stand  fast,"  and  I  was 
about  leaving,  when  he  seized  my  hand  again  and  asked  me  a  second  time  the 
same  question,  saying  he  expected  me  to  stand  fast.  Said  I  :  "  Certainly  I  will 
stand  fast."     I  was  smiling  all  the  time.     I  got  away  from  his  hand  a  second 


432  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

time,  and  lie  seized  it  again  and  drew  me  furtlier  in  the  room  and  asked  the  same 
question.  I  was  a  little  amused,  when  I  raised  myself  up  on  my  toes  in  this 
way  (standing  on  tiptoes)  and  said  :  "Why,  don't  you  see  lam  standing  firm  1" 
Then  he  put  this  in  my  mouth  :  "  When  are  you  going  to  kick  that  fellow  out," 
or  something  of  that  kind.     "  Oh,"  said  I,  "  we  will  kick  him  out  by  and  by." 

Q.  Are  you  certain  the  "kicking  out"  came  from  him? 

A.  Yes,  sir — oh  yes.  [Laughter.]  I  want  to  say  one  thing.  I  did  not  intend 
any  disrespect  to  Mr.  Stanton  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  he  has  always  treated 
me  with  kindness,  and  I  would  do  nothing  to  treat  him  with  disrespect. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  any  idea  of  kicking  Mr.  Stanton  for  any  purpose  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  use  the  word  at  all  ? 

A.  It  was  put  in  my  mouth. 

Q.  Did  you  say  it  seriously,  or  in  a  jocular  way  ? 

A.  (Smilingly.)  I  was  very  glad  to  get  away;  I  went  out  at  once. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  there  had  been  no  unkind  feelings 
between  you  and  Mr.  Stanton  ever? 

Answer.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  think  there  ever  had  been  any  unkind  feeling. 

Q.  Or  difference  of  opinion? 

A.  There  was  a  difference  of  opinion,  I  suppose. 

Q.  Did  you  not  believe  that  he  sent  you  away  from  the  office  of  Adjutant 
General  in  order  to  have  General  Townsend  carry  on  that  office  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  do  not  so  believe  ? 
■  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  not  done  anything  in  the  Adjutant  General's  office  as  the  head 
of  that  department  for  how  many  years  up  to  the  13th  of  February  last  ? 

A.  I  was  a  short  time  absent,  as  I  told  you,  on  the  James  river,  making 
exchanges  with  the  rebel  commissioner;  but  on  my  return  I  always  went  to 
my  office.     The  first  time,  perhaps,  that  I  was  detached  was,  I  think,  on   the 

23d  day  of .     I  ought  to  have  said  I  had  gone  three  or  four  times  up  to 

Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Please  answer  my  question.  You  ought  to  do  that. 
Since  what  time,  up  to  the  13th  day  of  February,  had  you  done  anything  in 
your  office  as  Adjutant  General  of  the  army,  not  acting  insfioctor  general  ? 

A.  I  was  in  the  Adjutant  General's  office — I  have  got  the  date  here,  if  you 
will  let  me  refer  to  it 

Mr.  Staniikkv.  Certainly,  refer  to  your  papers. 

The  Witness,  (producing  papers.)  These  are  my  original  instructions  to  go 
down  on  the  Mississippi  river. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  do  not  care  for  the  precise  date.  Can  you  not  tell 
me  the  month  ? 

A.  I  would  rather  give  you  the  precise  date.  I  have  it — the  25th  day  of 
March,  18G3. 

Q.  From  that  time  until  the  13th  of  February,  1868,  have  you  ever  con- 
ducted the  business  of  the  Adjutant  General's  office? 

A.  The  14th  was  the  date. 

Q.  Up  to  the  13 ih  will  do  for  me  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  always  been  sent  upon  outside  inspecting  duty  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Had  you  been  recommended  by  Mr.  Stanton  to  be  retired  ? 

A.  That  1  cannot  say.  1  was  recommended  by  General  Grant  to  be  retired, 
and  that  communication  went  to  Mr.  Stanton,  and  Mr.  Stanton  took  it  to  the 
President,  as  I  understood.     What  he  said  to  the  President  1  do  not  know. 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PRESIDENT.  433 

Q,.  The  President  overruled  General  Grant's  recommendation  for  your 
retiracy  1 

A.  The  President  did  not  set  me  aside. 

Q.  He  overruled  that  recommendation,  did  he  not?  He  did  not  have  you 
retired  in  pursuance  of  that  recommendation,  did  he  ? 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  ask  Mr.  Stanton  to  restore  you  to  office  1 

A.  No  ;   1  did  not. 

Q.  If  there  was  a  kindly  feeling  with  him  all  the  time  he  was  a  friend  of 
yours,  and  you  would  not  harm  a  hair  of  his  head,  certainly  not  kick  him,  why 
did  you  not  ask  him  '.' 

A.  I  knew  perfectly  well  that  the  services,  especially  this  one  that  I  referred 
to,  were  ver}'  important,  and  I  knew  he  said  himself  that  I  was  the  only  one 
who  could  do  the  work,  and  therefore  he  sent  me. 

Q.  But  while  you  knew  the  service  you  wei-e  sent  on  was  so  important,  and 
you  were  the  only  man  to  do  it,  you  did  ask  Johnson,  and  why  did  you  not  ask 
Stanton  to  restore  you  ? 

A.  I  did  not  suppose  he  wanted  me  in  the  office,  though  there  was  no  unkind 
feeling. 

Q.  Only  he  did  not  want  you  there  1 

A.  I  do  not  suppose  he  did. 

Q.  It  was  perfectly  kindly,  except  that  he  did  not  want  you  about  ? 

A.  I  suppose  so,  I  was  in  the  habit  of  going  to  his  office  whenever  I  was 
here ;  I  did  it  many  a  time,  and  he  has  asked  me  to  do  certain  things  iu  his 
office  there. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  have  answered  all.  Now,  General  Thomas, 
when  did  you  first  receive  the  intimation  from  the  President  that  you  were  to 
be  made  Secretary  of  War? 

A.  The  President  sent  for  me  on  the  18th  of  Februaiy. 

Q.  Three  days  before  you  got  the  order,  was  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  stated  that  you  had  an  intimation  that  you  would  be 
appointed  Secretary  of  War  earlier  than  that  ? 

A.  I  must  now  refer  to  a  paper  which  I  suppose  you  have.  When  I  was 
asked  before  one  of  the  committees  when  I  first  got  an  intimation  I  supposed 
they  were  referring  to  my  going  in  the  Adjutant  General's  office,  but  I  never 
had  an  intimation  before  the  18th  of  February  that  the  President  had  any  idea 
of  making  me  Secretary  of  War. 

Q.  Now,  if  you  will  pay  attention  to  my  question.  General  Thomas,  and 
answer  it,  you  will  oblige  me.  My  question  was,  whether  you  ever  stated  to 
anybody  that  you  got  such  an  intimation  before  that  time  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  knowledge,  unless  it  was  before  that  committee,  as  I  tell  you, 
the  two  things  were  mixed  up. 

Q.  Did  you  not  swear  that  before  the  committee? 

A.  I  afterward  made  a  correction  on  that  paper. 

Q.  Excuse  me;  I  did  not  ask  you  what  corrections  you  made;  I  asked  you 
what  you  swore  to  ? 

A.  I  swore  that  I  had  received  an  intimation,  but  I  found  that  it  was  not  so, 
and  I  had  a  right  to  correct  my  testimony. 

Q.  You  were  asked,  then,  before  the  committee,  not  the  managers  ? 

A.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  managers,  but  of  the  committee. 

Q.  You  were  asked  before  a  committee  of  the  House  when  you  received  the 
first  intimation.  How  early  did  you  swear  that  to  be,  whether  it  was  by  mis- 
take or  otherwise  ? 

A.  The  intimation  that  I  received  that  I  would  probably  be  put  in  the  Adju- 
28  I  P 


434  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

tant  General's  office  must  have  been  made  some  two  weeks  before  tlie  occur- 
rence, perhaps. 

Q.  1  ask  now,  and  I  want  you  again  to  pay  attention  to  my  question 

A.  I  know  your  question. 

Q.  How  early  did  you  swear  that  you  received  an  intimation  that  you  would 
be  made  Secretary  of  War  ? 

A.  I  should  like  to  divide  those  two  things.  I  told  you  that  I  corrected  my 
evidence. 

Q.  I  am  dividing  them ;  noAv  I  am  getting  to  what  you  swore  to  first ;  by 
and  by  I  will  come  to  the  correction,  perhaps.  I  have  divided  them.  Now 
answer  my  question.     AVhat  did  you  swear  to  first  before  you  took  advice  1 

Mr.  Stanberv.  "Took  advice;"  monstrous! 

The  Witness.  I  swore  that  I  received  an  intimation — I  think  an  intimation 
from  Colonel  Moore. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  who  you  received  it  from ;  I  asked  the  time  when. 

A.  I  cannot  tell  the  time  ;  I  do  not  know  it. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  swear  it  was  1 

A.  I  say  I  do  not  know ;  I  suppose  two  or  three  weeks ;  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  it  from  Colonel  Moore,  the  military  secretary  ? 

A.  Receive  what  ? 

Q.  The  intimation  that  you  were  to  be  made  Secretary  of  War  1 

A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  so  testify  ? 

A.  I  suppose  not,  because  I  tell  you  the  two  cases  were  in  my  mind.  I  think 
I  have  auf^wered  it  distinctly  enough.  The  honorable  manager  is  trying  to 
mix  two  things,  when  I  am  trying  to  separate  them. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  did  you  not  know  or  believe  you  were  to  be  made  Secretary  of 
War  before  you  received  that  order  of  the  21st  of  February  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  believe  you  were  ? 

A.  The  ISth,  I  said. 

Q,  Now  listen  to  the  question  and  answer  it.  That  will  be  better.  I  ask 
you  if  you  did  not  know  you  were  to  be  made  Secretary  of  War  before  you 
received  that  order  of  the  21st — know  or  believe  ? 

A.  "  Know  "  positive,  no. 

Q.  Did  you  not  believe  you  were  to  be  ? 

A.  I  thought  I  would  be,  because  it  had  been  intimated  to  me. 

Q.  Intimated  to  you  by  the  President  himself  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  whether  you  woi;ld  be  glad  to  take  the  office  1 

A.  I  told  him  1  would  take  it ;  I  would  obey  his  orders. 

Q.  What  made  you  tell  him  that  you  woiild  obey  his  orders  1 

A.   Because  he  was  my  Connnandcr-in-chief. 

Q.  Why  was  it  necessary  to  tell  him  you  would  obey  his  orders  ? 

A.  I  d(i  not  know  that  there  was  any  particular  necessity  in  it. 

Q.  Why  sliduld  you  say  to  him,  when  he  asked  you  to  be  Secretary  of  War, 
that  you  would,  and  would  obey  his  orders  ? 

A.  Certainly,  as  Secretary  of  War. 

Q.  Why  did  you  feel  it  necessary  in  your  own  mind  to  say  that  you  would 
obey  his  orders  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  particularly  necessary. 

Q.   Why  did  you  do  it  ? 

A.  It  was  a  very  natural  reply  to  make. 

Q.  Tell  me  any  other  time,  wlnn  you  were  appointed  to  an  office,  that  you 
told  the  a])jiointing  power  you  would  obey  the  orders. 

Mr.  EvARTc).  It  does  not  appear  he  was  appointed  at  any  other  time. 


IMPEACHMENT    OP   THE    PRESIDENT.  435 

Mr.  Mnnap;or  Butler.  Does  it  uot  ?  (To  the  witness.)  Have  you  not  been 
appointed  Adjiitaut  (xcneral  ? 

A.  Certainly;  I  am  Adjutant  General. 

Q.  At  any  other  time,  when  you  were  appointed  to  office,  tell  me  whom  you 
told  that  yuu  would  obey  the  orders. 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  told  any  one.  The  other  appointments  I  got  in  the 
oivlinary  course. 

Q.  I'hen  this  was  an  extraordinary  appointment  ? 

A.  Certainly  it  was ;  I  never  had  one  of  that  kind  before.     [Laughter.] 

Q.  And  so  extraordinary  that  you  thought  it  iiecessary  to  tell  the  President 
before  you  got  it  that  if  he  would  give  it  to  you  you  would  obey  his  orders  ? 

A.  I  did  not  say  any  such  thing. 

Q.  You  did  so  tell  him  1 

A.  I  did  tell  him  so. 

Q.  And  you  thought  it  was  proper  so  to  tell  him  ? 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  What  orders  did  you  expect  to  receive  that  you  found  it  necessary  to  tell 
him  you  would  obey  them  f 

A.  I  did  not  know  that  I  was  to  expect  to  receive  any  particular  order. 

Q.  Then,  before  you  got  the  appointment  you  told  him  you  would  obey  the 
order.     This  was  on  the  18th  ? 

Q.  Yes. 

A.  You  got  a  note  from  Colonel  Moore  to  go  to  the  President's,  you  say,  on 
the  21st? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  sent  for  on  the  18th  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Sent  for  by  Colonel  Moore  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  went  up  there  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  the  President  told  you  he  thought  of  making  you  Secretary  of 
War? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  told  him  you  would  be  very  glad  to  be  made  Secretary  of  War, 
and  would  obey  his  orders  1 

A.  I  did  not  say  I  would  be  very  glad. 

Q.  That  you  would  accept  it  1 

A.  The  President  said  that  he  thought  of  making  me  Secretary  of  War, 
but  that  he  would  consider  of  the  matter. 

Q.  And  you  answered  to  that  that  you  would  accept  it  and  obey  his  orders, 
did  you  ? 

A.  The  time  that  I  said  I  would  obey  his  orders  was  when  I  got  the 
appointment. 

Q.  Oh  !  that  was  the  time. 

A.  The  other  was  an  intimation  from  him. 

Q.  You  said  this  about  obeying  his  orders  at  the  time  you  got  the  appoint- 
ment ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  on  the  18th,  when  the  President  said  he  thought  of 
making  you  Secretary  of  War  ? 

A.  He  did  not  say  positively  he  was  going  to  make  me  so. 

Q.  He  said  he  was  considering  it  ? 

A.  He  said  he  was  considering  of  it. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  then  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  said  anything  in  particular. 


436  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  Anything  in  general — anything  at  all  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  did. 

Q.  You  neither  thanked  him,  nor  intimated  in  any  form  that  you  woidd  or 
would  not  take  it  ?      ^ 

A.  No. 

Q.  Then  you  want  to  take  it  back  now  ? 

A.  I  do  not  want  to  take  back  anything  I  have  said. 

Q.  Do  you  not  ?  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  told  him  on  the  ISthyou 
would  obey  his  orders  ? 

A.  1  meant  to  say  on  the  2 1st,  when  he  gave  me  the  appointment. 

Q.  Therefore,  you  want  to  take  it  back  as  to  the  18th  '{ 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Then  you  do  want  to  take  back  anything  1 

Mr.  EvARTs.  Hehas  already  con  ected  it  in  stating  thatyou  misimderstood  him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  he  did,  then  he  stated  what  was  not  correct,  for  I 
did  not  misunderstand  him. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  He  has  already  made  that  correction,  but  you  misunderstood 
him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  was  competent  to  hear  the  correction  he  made.  1 
am  perfectly  competent  to  hear  it  without  any  assistance.  (To  the  witness.) 
Now,  General  Thomas,  on  the  21st  again  you  were  sent  for? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Between  the  18th  and  21st  did  you  go  to  your  friend  Stanton  and  tell  him 
that  you  thought  of  taking  his  place  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  War  Office  ? 

A.  I  was  there  generally  every  day. 

Q.  On  the  21st  you  were  sent  for  again  by  Colonel  Moore,  were  you  not  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  By  a  note  ? 

A.  A  note. 

Q.  He  came  in  person  1 

A,  A  note. 

Q.  Hav^  you  that  note  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  have  or  not.  I  gave  one  note  to  the  counsel. 
One  I  mislaid. 

Q.  Do  you  think  Mr.  Stanbery  has  got  it  ? 

A.  I  think  he  took  one  of  them. 

Mr.  IManager  Butler.  We  will  pass  that  while  the  gentlemen  are  hunting  it 
up. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  have  none  of  the  21st. 

The  Witness.  Then  I  have  mislaid  it. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  You  got  a  note  to  go  to  the  President's  1 
A.  I  got  a  note  to  go  to  the  President's. 
Q.  Did  you  know  i'or  what  })urpo3e  ? 
A.  I  did  not. 
Q.  Did  you  suspect  1 
A.  I  had  no  suspicion  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  not  have  some  belief  of  what  you  were  going  there  for  ? 
A.  I  had  not. 
Q.  And  you  went  over? 
A.  I  went  over,  of  course. 

Q.  You  went  into  the  President's  room,  and  he  was  coming  out  of  the  library, 
you  say  if 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  4S7 

A.  I  went  into  tlie  council  room,  and  he  came  out  of  the  library  with  Colonel 
Moore. 

Q.  Fetching  two  papers  ready  written  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  please  state  to  me  exactly,  in  order,  what  was  first  said  and  what 
was  next  said  by  each  of  yon.  The  President  is  coming  out  with  two  papei's 
in  his  hand  ;  what  next  ? 

A.  I  think  the  first  thing  he  did  was  to  hand  them  to  Colonel  Moore  and  tell 
him  to  read  them. 

Q.  What  next?     They  were  read  then? 

A.  They  were  read  and  handed  to  me. 

Q.  What  then  ? 

A,  He  said,  "  I  shall  uphold  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  and  I  expect 
you  to  do  the  same."  I  said  certainly  I  would  do  it,  and  I  would  obey  his 
orders ;  that  is  the  time  I  used  that  expression. 

Q.  Let  me  see  if  I  have  got  it  exactly.  He  came  out  with  the  two  papers  ; 
handed  them  to  Colonel  Moore ;  Colonel  Moore  read  them.  He  then  said,  "  I 
am  going  to  uphold  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  and  I  want  you  to  do  the 
same  ;"  and  you  said,  "  I  will,  and  I  will  obey  your  orders  ?" 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  AVh}'  did  you  put  in  you  would  obey  his  orders  just  then? 

A.  I  suppose  it  was  very  natural,  speaking  to  my  commander-in-chief. 

Q.  What  next  was  said  then  1 

A.  He  told  me  to  go  over  to  Mr.  Stanton  and  deliver  the  paper  addressed  to 
him 

Q.  Which  you  did  so? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  In  the  manner  you  have  told  us  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  this  first  interview  before  you  left  the  building  Mr.  Stanton  gave  you 
the  letter  which  you  have  put  in  here,  did  he  ? 

A.  After  I  delivered  him  the  second  one,  the  one  to  me,  dated  the  21st  instant. 

Q.  Before  you  left  the  building  he  gave  you  that  paper? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  was  when  he  was  sitting  in  Schriver's  room. 

Q.  Then  you  knew  that  he  did  not  mean  to  give  up  the  ofiice? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  so  understood  fully  ? 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  You  went  back  and  reported  that  to  the  President,  did  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  report  to  him  that  Stanton  did  not  mean  to  give  up  that  office  ? 

A.  I  reported  to  him  exactly  what  Stanton  had  said. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  what  you  thought  about  it,  whether  he  was  going  to  give 
it  up  or  not  ? 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  what  you  thought  about  it  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  reported  facts  to  him.  You  reported  the  same  facts  that  had  made 
an  impression  on  your  mind  that  Stanton  was  not  going  to  give  up  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Ev.\RTS.  You  are  assuming  what  facts  he  stated.  You  are  assuming 
that  he  stated  something. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  beg  pardon.  I  assume  nothing.  (To  the  witness.) 
I  ask,  did  you  report  the  same  facts  to  the  President  which  had  made  the 
impression  on  your  mind  that  Stanton  did  not  mean  to  give  up  the  office  ? 

A.  I  reported  these  facts^ — his  conversation  with  me. 

Q.  Did  you  show  him  the  letter  ? 


458  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  1  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  him  about  tlie  letter  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q,  Why  not  ? 

A.  I  did  not  suppose  that  it  was  necessary. 

Q.  Here  was  a  letter  ordering  you  to 

Mr.  Stanbery  We  object  to  your  arguing  it  with  the  witness.  Ask  your 
question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Wait  till  the  question  is  out,  aud  if  yon  have  any 
objection  state  it.     Do  not  interrupt  me. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  object  to  argument  now  ;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  You  had  a  letter  whicli  alleged  on  its 
face  that  your  action  was  illegal,  and  which  convinced  you,  as  you  say,  with, 
other  facts 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  ask  that  that  question  be  reduced  to 
writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  shall  never  be  able  to  reduce  it  to  writing  if  you  do 
not  stop  interrupting  me.  I  will  put  the  question  now  once  more.  (To  the 
witness.)  You  had  a  letter  from  Mr.  Stanton  which,  together  with  other  facts 
that  had  happened,  convinced  you  that  Stanton  meant  not  to  give  up  the  otfice. 
Now,  sir,  with  that  letter  in  your  pocket,  why  did  you  not  report  it  to  your 
chief  ? 

A.  I  did  not  suppose  it  was  necessary.  I  reported  the  conversation  that  I 
had  said  I  would  give  orders,  and  he  said  he  would  countermand  them,  and  that 
he  gave  those  orders  to  both  General  Schriver  and  General  Townsend. 

Q.  Then  did  you  tell  the  President  that  Mr.  Stanton  had  given  orders  to 
Schriver  and  Townsend  not  to  obey  you  1 

A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  about  that  in  your  own  mind  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  have  any  doubt  of  that. 

Q.  After  that  I  understand  you  to  say  he  said,  "  Very  well,  go  on  and  take 
possession  of  the  office  V 

A.  He  did  so. 

Q.  Was  anything  more  said  ? 

A.  I  think  not  at  that  time. 

Q.  You  went  away  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  day  was  this  on  the  21st  ? 

A.  I  closed  the  office  about  12  o'clock.  I  suppose  I  was  absent  at  the 
President's  a  short  time,  for  it  took  but  a  short  time.  I  imagine  it  was  about 
1  o'clock. 

Q.  You  mean  you  closed  the  office  as  Adjutant  General,  by  your  order  as 
Adjutant  General,  about  12  o'clock  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  at  12  o'clock. 

Q.  After  that  you  went  to  the  President  and  got  your  own  order  as  Secretary 
of  War  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  after  that  you  carnc  down  to  Mr.  Stanton  and  had  a  conversation 
with  him,  got  a  letter,  and  went  buck  to  the  President's  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  afternoon  Avas  it  when  you  went  back  to  the  President's? 

A.  I  think  I  can  call  it  to  mind  in  this  way  :  the  lime  was  noted  when  I  had 
this  conversation  that  lion.  Mr.  Moorhcad  took  down;  1  think  it  was  ten 
minutes  past 

]\[r.  Manager  Butler.  That  was  the  next  day. 

The  WnwESS.  Oh  !  you  are  speaking  of  the  2l8t? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  439 

Q.  Was  Moorbead  there  on  the  21st  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  ara  speaking  of  the  21st. 

A.  I  went  down  and  had  the  copy  made,  and  as  soon  as  the  cleik  made  it  I 
certified  it,  and  then  I  took  it  up,  and  then  went  to  the  President's. 

(J.  What  time  in  the  day  was  it  1     That  is  all  I  desire. 

A.  I  suppose  it  must  have  been  between  1  and  2  o'clock;  perhaps  nearer 
two  than  one. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  President  again  that  day  ? 

A.  Not  after  I  paid  this  visit. 

Q.  Then  after  he  told  you  to  go  and  take  possession  of  the  office  you  did  not 
see  the  President?  Was  it  JMr.  Wilkeson  or  Mr.  Burleigh  that  you  first  told 
about  taking  possession  of  the  office  ? 

A.  Wilkeson. 

Q.  Where  was  that  1 

A.  I  think  it  was  in  my  own  office  first. 

Q    About  how  long  after  you  left  the  President's  ? 

A.  I  am  not  certain  whether  it  was  before  or  after,  as  Wilkeson  came  there 
to  see  me. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  it  was  before  or  after  that  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  it  was  before  I  went  over  to  the  President's  or 
after.     I  think  it  was  before,  however. 

Q.  You  told  Mr.  Wilkeson,  he  tells  us,  that  you  meant  to  call  on  General 
Grant  for  a  military  force  to  take  possession  of  the  office  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  that  when  you  told  it,  or  was  it  merely  rhodomontade  ? 

A.  I  suppose  I  did  not  mean  it,  for  it  never  entered  my  head  to  use  force. 

Q.  You  did  not  mean  it  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  mere  boast,  brag  ? 

A.  Oh,  yes. 

Q.  How  was  that  ?     Speak  as  loud  as  you  did  when  you  began. 

A.  I  suppose  so. 

Q.  Very  well,  then.  You  saw  Wilkeson  that  evening  again,  did /you  not,  at 
Willard's  Hotel  1 

A.  I  think  I  saw  him  there  for  a  few  moments. 

Q.  Did  you  again  tell  him  you  meant  to  use  force  to  get  into  the  office  1 

A.  That  I  do  not  recollect.     I  stated  it  to  him  once,  I  know. 

Q.  Can  you  not  tell  whether  you  bragged  to  him  again  that  evening  1 

A.  I  did  not  brag  to  him. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  him  at  Willard's  that  you  meant  to  use  force  to  get  into 
that  office  1 

A.  Either  at  my  office  or  Willard's,  one  of  the  two. 

Q.  You  have  already  said  you  told  it  to  him  at  your  office  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  told  it  to  him  more  than  once. 

Q.  Suppose  that  he  testifies  that  you  told  it  at  Willard's  to  him ;  was  that 
brag  then  1 

A,  It  would  have  been  the  same,  yes. 

Q.  You  saw  Burleigh  that  evening  ? 

A.  At  my  own  house. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  that  you  meant  to  use  force  ? 

A.  I  think  the  expression  I  used  to  him  was  that  if  I  found  my  doors  locked 
I  would  break  them  open. 

Q.  Did  he  not  put  the  question  to  you  in  this  form  substantially  :  "What 
will  you  do  if  Stanton  will  not  go  out ;"  and  did  you  not  answer,  "  We  will  put 
him  out?" 


440  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  dare  say  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  you  did  ? 

A.  I  dare  say  I  did  ;  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  Did  he  not  then  say,  •'  But  suppose  the  doors  are  barred  ;"  and  did  you 
not  then  say,  "  I  will  batter  them  down,"  or  "  We  will  batter  them  down  1" 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  brag  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  At  that  time  I  felt  as  if  I  would  open  the  doors  if  they  were 
locked  against  me. 

Q.  Then  you  had  got  over  bragging  at  that  time,  had  you  1 

A.  I  suppose  so. 

Q,  Do  you  not  know  whether  you  had  or  not  ? 

A.  When  I  had  this  conversation  Avith  Mr.  Burleigh  I  felt  precisely  as  I  said 
to  him. 

Q.  At  that  time  you  really  meant  to  go  in  and  bi'eak  down  the  door  ? 

A.  If  it  was  locked,  yes. 

Q.  And  really  meant  to  use  force  according  as  you  said  you  would  ?  You 
meant  what  you  said,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  I  meant  what  I  said. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  Mr.  Burleigh  has  not  properly  put  before  the 
Senate  what  you  did  say  ? 

A.  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  so.  He  would  recollect  the  conversation  better 
than  I. 

Q.  And  whatever  you  said  to  him  you  meant  in  good,  solemn  earnest  ? 

A.  I  suppose  so. 

Q.  No  rhodomontade  there  1  You  had  got  over  playfulness  with  Wilkesou 
about  writing  to  Grant  entirely,  had  you  not  1 

A.  Yes ;  because  I  had  got  home  and  had  time  to  think  the  matter  over. 

Q.  And  having  got  over  the  playful  part  of  it,  and  thinking  the  matter  over, 
you  had  come  to  the  conclusion  to  use  force ;  and  having  come  to  that  conclu- 
sion, why  did  you  not  ? 

A.  Because  I  reflected  that  it  would  not  answer. 

Q.  Why  not  answer? 

A.  It  would  produce  difficulty,  and  I  did  not  want  to  bring  it  on. 

Q.  What  kind  of  difficulty  ] 

A.  I  supposed  bloodshed. 

Q.  And  what  else  ? 

A.  Nothing  else. 

Q.  Then  by  difficulty  you  moan  bloodshed,  do  you  say  ? 

A.  If  I  had  used  force  I  suppose  I  would  have  been  resisted  with  force,  and 
blood  might  have  been  shed.     That  is  my  answer. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  Burleigh  or  did  P>urleigh  leave  you  ? 

A.  It  was  after  night  when  he  came  ;   the  visit  was  a  very  short  one. 

Q.  About  what  time  did  lie  leave  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  exactly  ;  eight  or  nine  o'clock,  I  suppose. 

Q.  Immediately  after  he  left  did  you  go  to  a  mas([uera(le  ball  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  How  late  did  you  stay  ? 

A.  I  staved  until  about  the  time  of — I  suppose  it  was  toward  midnight. 

Q.  After? 

A.  I  cannot  be  positive  of  that.     About  midnight,  I  presume. 
Q.  IIow  soon  was  it  after  Burleigh  left  before  you  left  for  the  ball  1 
A.  I  think  it  was  about  nine  o'clock  or  along  about  half  past  nine  or  some- 
where there.     It  was  after  Ikuleigh  left. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  but  your  own  family  between  the  time  Burleigh  left 
and  the  tune  you  started  for  the  ball  .' 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  441 

A.  Yes. 

Q,  Who? 

A.  A  little  girl  living  next  door,  wlio   was   going  with  my  daughter  to  the 
masquerade  ball. 

Q.  A  young  lady  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.   You  did  not  discuss  this  matter  Avith  her,  I  take  it  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  it  with  anybody  after  you  left  Burleigh  or  Burleigh  left 
you  until  you  got  to  the  ball  I 

A.  I  did  not.     I  saw  no  person  to  discuss  it  with.  . 

Q.  And  you  did  not  discuss  it  at  the  ball  ? 

A.  I  did  not, 

Q.  And  a  masquerade  ball — I  do  not  know,  but  I  put  it  interrogatively — is 
not  a  good  place  for  contemplation  of  high  ministerial  official  duties,  is  it  ? 

A.  No,  it  is  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  contemplate  your  official  duties  there,  did  you  ? 

A.  I  went  there,  I  say,  to  take  charge  of  two  little  girls.     That  was  all. 

Q.  And  to  throw  off  care,  as  we  all  have  a  right  to  do] 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  go  with  any  such  purpose.  I  had  promised  them  some 
days  before. 

Q.  Ycu  went  with  them? 

A.  I  went  with  them  to  take  charge  of  them.  I  went  in  my  present  dress 
[The  uniform  of  a  major  general.] 

Q.  And  when  you  came  home  you  went  to  bed  immediately  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  early  in  the  morning — how  long  had  you  been  up  before  this  marshal 
came  1 

A.  I  generally  rise  about  seven,  imless  when  I  go  to  market.  I  get  up 
earlier  then. 

Q.  How  early  did  you  get  up  this  morning,  having  been  out  a  little  late  the 
night  before  / 

A.  I  got  up  at  seven  o'clock ;  that  is  my  usual  houi*. 

Q.  Did  the  marshal  come  immediately  ? 

A.  The  marshal  came  there  about  eight  o'clock. 

Q.  Before  you  could  get  any  breakfast  ? 

A.  Before  I  had  my  breakfast. 

Q.  Did  you  consult  anybody  on  this  question  between  the  time  of  getting  up 
and  the  time  the  marshal  came  1 

A-  I  did  not. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  before  this  the  last  you  said  to  anybody  on  this  question  was 
that  you  told  Burleigh  in  solemn  earnest  you  were  going  to  use  force,  and  then, 
almost  immediately,  j^ou  went  to  a  ball ;  from  the  ball  you  came  home  and 
went  to  bed  ;  got  up,  and  saw  nobody  until  the  marshal  came.  When  did  you 
change  your  mind  from  this  solemn  determination  to  use  force,  although  it 
might  bring  on  bloodshed  1 

A.  I  changed  it  after  I  had  made  use  of  this  to  Burleigh,  undoubtedly. 

Q.  I  know  you  did,  after.     When  ? 

A.  I  suppose  very  soon. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  what  your  supposition  is.  I  asked  you  when  you 
changed  your  mind] 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  When  do  you  first  remember  having  changed  your  mind? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  is  the  first  remembrance  that  you  have  of  a  different  purpose? 

A.  I  do  not  know.     You  are  asking  now  us  to  a  point  of  time. 


442  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  No ;  I  am  asking  no  point  of  time.  Yoii  have  now  a  different  purpose  in 
your  miiul,  have  you  not,  from  what  you  told  Burleigh  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  must  have  obtained  that  purpose  some  time.  "When  did  you  change 
the  purpose  ?     The  first  time,  you  remember,  you  had  a  different  purpose. 

A.  I  certainly  changed  it  before  I  was  arrested,  and  that  was  at  8  o'clock  on 
tlie  morning  of  the  22d. 

Q.  How  do  you  fix  that  so  certainly  ? 

A.  Because  on  the  22d  I  had  determined  not  to  do  so. 

Q.  AVhat  time  on  the  22d  1 

A.  Before  I  was  arrested,  undoubtedly. 

Q.  Why  "undoubtedly?" 

A.  I  may  have  thought  it  over  in  bed  before  I  got  up. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  you  did,  and  that  you  changed  your  purpose  then  1 

A.  I  cannot  tell  the  precise  moment  when  I  changed  my  purpose. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  Mr.  Burleigh  that  the  reason  why  you  did  not  carry  out 
your  purpose  was  the  cause  of  your  arrest  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  anything  to  that  effect  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  on  that  subject  with  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  Dr.  Burleigh  after  that,  I  do  not  think. 

Q.  He  testified  that  within  a  week  of  the  time  he  was  on  the  stand  you  told 
him  that  the  reason  why  you  did  not  carry  out  the  purpose  which  you  had  told 
him  you  would  of  using  force  was  that  you  were  arrested. 

A.  He  must  have  misunderstood  me,  then,  because  the  arrest  had  nothing  to 
do  with  it. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  tell  him  that  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  not  ? 

A.  I  will  not  say  I  know  not ;  but  1  am  pretty  certain  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  makes  you  certain  you  did  not  tell  him  so  ? 

A.  Because  I  had  made  up  my  mind  not  to  use  force  at  all. 

Q.  Were  you  not  asked  by  the  board  of  managers,  on  the  13th  of  March, 
after  having  heard  Burleigh's  testimony  read,  whether  it  was  not  true,  and  did 
you  not  say  it  was  all  true  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did.  I  said  that  both  his  and  Wilkeson's  was  true,  because 
what  they  testified  to  I  said  I  had  no  doubt  was  the  fact. 

Q.  Now,  Avhy  do  you  say  Burleigh's  testimony  is  not  true  when  he  says  that 
you  told  him  that  the  arrest  was  the  cause  of  your  change?  . 

A.  That  1  do  not  think  I  told  him. 

Q.  And  th(!  only  reason  you  have  for  thinking  you  did  not  tell  him  is  that 
you  think  you  must  have  come  to  the  conclusion  before  you  Avere  arrested  1 

A.  I  did,  certainly. 

Q.  But  you  cannot  tell  us  when  you  did  come  to  that  conclusion  from  any 
act  of  memory  of  yours  ? 

A.  Not  the  particular  moment. 

Mr.  Morrill,  of  Maine.  If  the  parties  are  willing  to  pause  here, as  it  is  now 
5  o'clock 

Several  Sknators.  Get  through  with  this  witness. 

Mr.  Morrill,  of  Maine.  I  would  move  an  adjournment,  not  otherwise. 

Mr.  JIanager  Butlkr.  We  shall  be  wholly  under  the  direction  of  the  Sen- 
ate.    We  have  no  objection  on  our  part. 

The  Chief  Justick.  The  Senator  from  Maine  moves 

Mr.  Morrill,  of  Maine.  I  do  not  make  the  motion  unless  it  suits  the  con- 
venience of  parties. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  443 

Mr.  Manager  I^jl^tler.  I  will  go  on.  (To  the  witness.)  Now,  then,  General 
Thomas,  Avhon  you  came  to  the  solemn  conclusion  to  use  force  after  solemnly 
thinking  of  the  matter,  did  you  believe  in  your  own  mind  you  were  carrying 
out  the  President's  orders  1 

A.  No ;  quite  the  reverse. 

Q.  Then  when  you  came  to  that  conclusion  you  believed  you  were  going  to 
do  it  against  his  orders,  did  you  ? 

A.  Not  in  accordance  with  them,  certainly. 

Q.  Then,  although  you  had  told  him  the  day  before  that  you  would  obey  his 
orders,  you  came  to  a  determination  to  do  quite  the  reverse,  did  you  1 

Mr.  Stanbery.  He  has  not  said  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  asking  him  if  he  did. 

The  Witness.  Repeat  that  question. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  You  say  that  you  came  to  the  solemn  determination  to  use  force,  and  you 
meant  to  do  it,  quite  in  reverse  of  the  President's  orders  ? 

A.  I  said  no  such  thing. 

Q.  Hear  the  question.  The  day  before,  when  you  received  your  appointment, 
you  told  him  you  would  obey  his  orders  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  The  first  act  that  you  came  to  a  solemn  conclusion  about  was  that  you 
proposed  to  act  the  very  reverse  of  his  orders  1 

A.  I  did  not  say  that  was  in  reverse  of  his  orders.  I  said  that  was  my  idea; 
if  I  was  resisted  I  could  resist  in  turn. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  to  do  that  act  in  obedience  to  the  President's  orders  or 
against  them  1 

A.  Not  in  obedience  to  the  President's  orders,  for  he  gave  me  no  orders. 

Q.  You  mean  to  say  that  you  had  come  to  a  solemn  resolution  on  your  own 
responsibility  to  initiate  bloodshed  1 

A.  I  said  that  I  would,  if  I  found  the  doors  locked,  break  them  down,  and  I 
aftervvard  said  that  when  I  came  to  think  of  the  matter  I  found  that  a  difficulty 
might  occur,  and  I  would  not  be  the  means  of  bringing  about  bloodshed.  That 
is  what  I  say. 

Q.  Did  you  think  you  were  justified  in  doing  what  you  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion to  do  by  the  President's  order  ? 

A.  I  would  have  been  justified  as  my  own  act. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  you  were  so  justified  by  the  President's  order? 

A.  No ;  not  by  the  President's  order — by  the  appointment  wliich  he  gave 
me,  yes. 

Q.  The  appointment  he  gave  you  ? 

A.  I  had  a  right  then  to  go  and  take  possession  of  that  office. 

Q.  By  force  ? 

A.  In  any  way  I  pleased. 

Q.  At  your  pleasure,  by  force.  Now,  did  you  ever  ask  the  President  what 
you  should  do  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  not  ever  suggest  to  him  that  Stanton  would  resist  ? 

A.  I  reported  to  him  from  day  to  day  that  every  time  I  asked  him  he  re- 
fused. 

Q.  Anything  but  the  refusal  1 

A.  The  refusal  was  the  only  thing. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  suggest  to  him  that  Stanton  would  resist  1 

A.  Resist  by  force  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  No  ;  I  said  he  refused. 


444  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  Did  you  not  iindorstand  in  your  own  mind  tlint  he  Avoiild  so  resist  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  what  means  he  woukl  take. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  what  you  knew.  Did  you  uot  in  your  own  mind  believe 
he  would  resist? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Had  you  any  doubt  of  it  ? 

A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  Did  you  not  know  that,  if  you  got  in  at  all,  you  must  get  in  by  force  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  report  to  the  President,  your  superior,  that  you  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  you  could  not  get  in,  if  you  got  in  at  all,  except  by  force  ? 

A.  I  said  no  such  thing  to  him. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  report  to  him  the  conclusiou  you  came  to  ? 

A.  I  did  not  think  it  necessary  at  all. 

Q.  You  reported  to  him  every  time  Stanton  refused  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  report  to  him  that  you  could  not 
get  the  office  without  resistance  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  And  you  never  asked  his  advice  what  you  should  do  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  for  his  command  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  orders  in  any  way  ? 

A.  No.  He  merely  told  me  to  go  on  and  take  possession  of  the  office,  with- 
out stating  how  I  was  to  do  it. 

Q.  And  how  many  times  over  did  he  keep  telling  you  that  as  you  reported 
to  him  ? 

A.  I  think  I  had  three  interviews  with  Mr.  Stanton. 

Q.  One  Friday  ? 

A.  One  Saturday,  one  Monday,  and  one  Tuesday  ;  I  think  four.  Saturday 
was  the  time  I  made  the  demand. 

Q.  Each  time  when  you  made  the  demand  on  Mr.  Stanton  he  refused  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Each  time  you  reported  it  to  the  President  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  During  all  the  time  you  were  certain  be  would  not  give  up  except  by  force  ? 

A.  I  was  certain  he  would  not  give  up ;  he  Avas  going  to  keep  it. 

Q.  And,  thinking  it  important  to  report  each  time  his  refusal,  you  never  asked 
the  President  how  you  should  get  possession  of  the  office? 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Nor  never  suggested  to  him  that  you  could  not  get  it  except  by  force? 

A.  I  suggested  to  him  tliat  the  true  plan  would  be,  in  order  to  get  possession 
of  the  papers,  to  call  u[)on  (reneral  Grant 

Q.  Leave  the  papers — the  office  I  am  talking  about. 

A.  The  papers  are  the  tiling.  You  cannot  carry  on  an  office  unless  you  have 
what  is  inside  of  it. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  how  you  can  carry  on  an  office.  I  ask  if  you  ever  reported 
to  him  anything  more  than  ]\Ir.  Stanton's  refusal? 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  You  never  asked  how  you  were  to  get  possession  of  the  building? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Now,  let  me  come  to  the  matter  of  papers.  Did  you  afterward  liit  upon 
a  scheme  by  which  you  might  get  possession  of  the  papers  without  getting  pos- 
session of  the  building  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  445 

Q.  And  that  was  by  getting  au  order  of  General  Grant? 

A.  Yes 

Mr.  EvARTS.  He  has  not  stated  what  it  was. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Did  you  write  such  an  order  ? 

A.  I  wrote  the  draft  of  a  letter;  yes,  and  gave  it  to  the  President. 

Q.  Did  you  sign  it? 

A.  I  signed  it. 

Q.  And  left  it  with  the  President  for  his 

A.  For  his  consideration. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  The  letter  is  dated  the  10th  of  March. 

Q.  That  was  the  morning  after  you  told  Karsner  you  were  going  to  kick  him 
out  ? 

A.  That  was  the  morning  after. 

Q.  And  you  carried  that  letter? 

A.  I  had  spoken  to  the  President  before  about  that  matter. 

Q.  You  did  not  think  any  bloodshed  would  come  of  that  letter  ? 

A.  None  at  all. 

Q.  And  the  letter  was  to  be  issued  as  your  order? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  before  you  issued  that  order,  took  that  way  to  get  hold  of  the  mails 
or  papers,  you  thought  it  necessary  to  consult  the  President? 

A.  I  gave  that  to  him  for  his  consideration. 

Q.  You  did  think  it  necessary  to  consult  the  President,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  I  had  consulted  him  before. 

Q.  Either  before  or  after  you  thought  it  necessary  ? 

A.  It  was  merely  carrying  out  that  consultation. 

Q.  When  you  thought  of  getting  possession  of  the  mails  and  papers  through 
an  order  as  Secretary  of  War  you  thought  it  necessary  to  consult  the  President ; 
but  you  did  not  think  any  bloodshed  would  come  from  that,  did  you  ? 

A.  No,  I  did  not ;  it  was  a  peaceable  mode. 

Q.  W^hen  you  were  about  taking  a  peaceable  mode  in  issuing  your  order  you 
consulted  him  ?  When  you  had  come  to  the  conclusion  to  run  the  risk  of  blood- 
shed you  did  not  consult  him  ?     Is  that  so  ? 

A.  I  did  not  consult  him, 

Q.  Did  the  President  ever  give  at  any  of  these  times  any  other  answer  than 
"  Go  on  and  get  possession  ?" 

A.  No  ;  not  in  reference  to  the  office. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  chide  you  in  any  way  for  any  means  that  you  were  employ- 
ing ? 

A.  Never. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  find  fault  that  you  were  doing  it  differently  from  what  you 
ought  to  do  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  remark  to  you  in  any  way  about  declarations  of  force  until 
after  these  impeachment  proceedings  began  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  They  were  published  and  notorious,  were  they  not  ?  Have  you  acted  as 
Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  since  ? 

A.  I  have  given  no  order  whatever. 

Q.  That  may  not  be  all  the  action  of  a  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim.     Have 
you  acted  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  ? 
A.  I  have,  in  other  respects. 
Q.  What  other  respects  ? 


446  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  have  attended  the  councils. 

Q.  Cabinet  meetings,  you  mean  ? 

A.  Cabinet  meetings. 

Q.  Have  you  been  recognized  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  7 

A.  I  have  been. 

Q.  Continually? 

A.  Continually. 

Q.  By  the  President  and  the  other  members  of  the  cabinet? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Down  to  the  present  hour  ? 

A.  Down  to  the  present  hour. 

Q.  All  your  action  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  has  been  confined,  has  it 
not,  to  attending  cabinet  meetings  ? 

A.  It  has.     i  have  given  no  order  whatever. 

Q.  Have  you  given  any  advice  to  the  President?  You  being  one  of  his  con- 
stitutional advisers,  have  you  given  him  advice  as  to  the  duties  of  his  office,  or 
the  duties  of  yours  ? 

A.  The  ordinary  conversation  that  takes  place  at  meetings  of  that  kind.  I 
do  not  know  that  1  gave  him  any  particular  advice. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  call  you  in  ? 

A.  He  has  asked  me  if  I  had  any  business  to  lay  before  him  several  times. 

Q.  You  never  had  any? 

A.  I  never  had  any  except  the  case  of  the  note  I  proposed  sending  to  Gen- 
eral Grant. 

Q.  I  want  to  inquire  a  little  further  about  that.  He  did  not  agree  to  send 
that  notice,  did  he  ? 

A.  When  I  first  spoke  to  him  about  it  I  told  him  what  the  mode  of  getting 
possession  of  the  papers  was,  to  write  a  note  to  General  Grant  to  issue  an  order 
calling  upon  the  heads  of  bureaus,  as  they  were  military  men,  to  send  to  me 
communications  designed  either  for  the  President  or  the  Secretary  of  War. 
That  was  one  mode. 

Q.  What  was  the  other  mode  yoix  suggested  ? 

A.  'J'he  other  mode  would  be  to  require  the  mails  to  be  delivered  from  the 
city  post  oflice. 

Q.  And  he  told  you  to  draw  the  order? 

A.  No  ;  he  did  not. 

Q.  But  you  did  ? 

A.  I  did  it  of  myself,  after  having  this  talk. 

Q.  Did  he  agree  to  that  suggestion  of  yours  ? 

A.  He  said  he  would  take  it  and  put  it  on  his  own  desk.  He  would  think 
about  it. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  On  the  lOlh. 

Q.  Has  it  been  lying  there  ever  since,  as  far  as  you  know  ? 

A.  It  has  been. 

Q.  He  has  been  considering  ever  since  on  that  subject? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  he  has  been  doing. 

Q.  Has  he  ever  spoken  to  you  or  you  to  him  about  that  order  since  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  When? 

A.  I  may  have  mentioned  it  one  day  at  the  council,  and  he  said  we  had  better 
let  the  matter  rest  until  after  the  impeachment.     1  think  that  was  it. 

Q.  Until  the  impeachment  trial  was  over?  So  it  is  resting  there  awaiting 
this  trial,  as  you  understand  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Not  to  be  lirought  up  till  then? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  447 

A.  I  so  understand. 

Q.  With  the  exception  of  that,  attending  those  meetings  has  been  your  entire 
business  as  Secretary  ad  interim  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  has  he  ever  asked  you  to  know  Avhere  the  troops  were  about 
Washington  1 

A.  He  never  did. 

Q.  Or  whether  there  had  been  any  changes  of  troops  ? 

A.  He  never  did. 

Q.  You  tell  us  you  attended  a  masquerade  ball  that  night.  Did  you  keep 
the  President  advised  of  where  you  were  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Colonel  Moore  where  you  were  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  where  you  were  going  ? 

A.  I  think  not — no. 

Q.  You  are  pretty  sure  about  that  ? 

A.  He  might  have  known  I  was  going  to  the  masquerade  ball.  I  had  pro- 
cured tickets  for  my  children  some  days  before. 

Q.  Did  the  President  in  any  of  the  interviews  with  you,  his  cabinet  coun- 
sellor, his  constitutional  adviser,  ever  suggest  to  you  that  he  had  not  removed 
Mr.  Stanton  ? 

A.  Never.  He  always  said  that  Mr.  Stanton  was  out  of  office  ;  he  took  that 
ground  at  once. 

Q.  Were  you  not  somewhat  surprised  when  you  heard  Mr.  Curtis  say  here 
yesterday  that  he  was  not  removed  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  tell  you  that  you  were  not  appointed  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Have  you  not  always  known  you  were  appointed  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Has  he  not  over  and  over  again  told  you  you  were  appointed  ? 

A.  No  ;  not  over  and  over  again. 

Q.  But  two  or  three  times  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  has  come  up  at  all.  He  may  have  done  it  two  or 
three  times. 

Q.  He  never  suggested  to  you  from  the  day  he  gave  you  that  paper,  when 
he  was  going  to  support  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  down  to  to-day,  he  never 
intimated  to  you  that  you  were  not  appointed  regularly  as  Secretary  of  War, 
did  he  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  And  that  he  had  not  appointed  you  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  none  of  the  cabinet,  his  constitutional  advisers,  say,  "  You  are  not 
appointed,  general ;  you  are  only  here  by  sujfferance  ?"  None  of  them  ever  said 
that,  did  they  ? 

A.  None  of  them  ever  said  that  to  me. 

Q.  Tell  us,  if  you  can,  what  you  meant  when  you  told  the  President  you 
were  going  to  uphold  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  ? 

A.  Why,  to  be  governed  by  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance 
thereof,  of  course. 

Q.  You  were  going  to  be  governed  by  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  made 
in  pursuance  thereof.     Did  you  include  in  that  the  tenure-of-office  bill  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  so  far  as  it  applied  to  me. 

Q.  You  were  going  to  uphold  the  Constitution  and  that  particular  law ;  you 
bad  that  in  your  mind  at  the  time,  had  you  not  ? 


448  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  Not  particularly  in  my  miiul  at  the  time. 

Q.  You  did  not  make  any  exception  of  that  ? 

A.  No  ;  I  made  no  exception  ;  you  have  got  ray  language. 

Q.  Has  not  the  President  given  you  directions  about  other  things  than  taking 
possession  of  the  War  Office  ? 

A.  He  has  told  me  on  several  occasions  what  he  wanted.  He  wanted  to  get 
some  nominations  sent  up  here.  They  were  on  the  Secretary's  table,  on  Mr. 
Stanton's  table. 

Q.  And  he  could  not  get  them  1 

A.  He  did  not  get  them. 

Q.  Well,  he  could  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  say  that. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you,  whether  he  could  or  could  not  get  them  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  could  or  could  not.     I  could  not  get  them. 

Q.  And  he  could  not,  as  far  as  you  know  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  he  could  iiot. 

Q.  And  he  complained  to  you  1 

A.  He  did  not  complain  to  me,  but  he  said  that  cases  were  lying  over,  and 
some  of  them  military  cases,  that  ought  to  be  disposed  of.  I  mentioned  it  to 
Mr.  Stanton  twice  that  the  President  wanted  those  nominations,  and  he  said  he 
would  see  to  it.  This  was  while  I  was  acting  as  Adjutant  General,  not  as 
Secretary  of  War. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 
Q.  Did  he  send  them  to  the  President  ? 
A.  He  did  not,  to  my  knowledge. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butlrr  : 

Q.  Now,  at  any  other  of  these  times,  when  he  has  given  you  directions,  has 
he  ever  told  you  he  was  going  to  uphold  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  1 

A.  No  ;   I  think  not. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  tell  you  he  was  going  to  uphold  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  1 

A.  That  is  the  only  time  that  conversation  occurred  between  us. 

Q.  Can  you  give  any  reason  wliy  both  of  you  should  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  wanted  upholding  about  that  time  1 

A.  No. 

Q.  What  had  happened  to  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  or  was  about  to  hap- 
pen, that  required  you  both  to  uphold  them  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  anything  was  about  to  happen. 

Q.  Well,  what  had  happtined  ? 

A.  Nothing  had  happened. 

Q.  Why  did  h(;  so  solemnly  tell  you  there,  upon  this  occasion,  that  he  was 
going  to  uphold  the  Constitution  and  laws,  and  why  did  you  say,  "  I  will  uphold 
the  Constitution  and  laws  ]" 

A.  Why,  it  was  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world.  He  made  the  remark 
to  me. 

Q.  Now,  about  Mr.  Karsner,  and  I  will  not  trouble  you  much  further.  Were 
you  examined  before  the  managers  about  Mr.  Karsner's  testimony  '{ 

A.  It  was  read  to  me  there. 

Q.  As  taken  down  from  his  lips  1 

A    I  suppose  so. 

Q.  Was  it  not  substantially  almost  exactly  as  he  gave  it  here  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  how  he  gave  it  here  exactly. 

Q.  Did  not  you  hear  him  1 

A.  There  was  one  point  in  it  I  did  not  agree  to. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  give  it  here  ? 

A.  Partially.     I  could  not  hear  all  where  I  was  sitting. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  449 

Q.  As  it  was  read  over  to  you  there,  were  you  not  asked  in  Karsner's  pres- 
ence if  tliere  was  anything  that  he  said  that  was  not  true  ? 

A.  The  question  was  asked  me  and  I  answered  yes. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  it  was  he  said  that  was  not  true  ? 

A.  I  think  he  testified  here 

Q.  No  ;  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  there.  I  am  speaking  now  of  a  portion  of  the  testimony 
here. 

Q.  You  told  me  you  did  not  hear  here,  and  therefore  I  confine  my  question 
to  what  occurred  before  the  managers.  Keep  your  mind,  if  you  can,  to  the  time 
when  you  were  before  the  managers.  Did  you  not  sit  down  before  the  managers 
and  there  have  Mr.  Karsner's  testimony  read  over  to  you  in  his  presence  1 

A.  It  was  read  over,  but  not  at  my  instance  at  all.  It  was  read  to  me,  and  I 
was  asked  if  it  was  correct,  and  I  said  "  Yes." 

Q.  You  were  asked  if  it  were  correct  and  you  said  "  Yes."  Did  you  object 
that  any  single  word  was  not  correct  ? 

A.  I  did  not  object  to  any  word.     I  objected  to  his  manner. 

Q.  How  couM  you  see  his  manner  on  paper] 

A.  You  asked  him  to  get  up  and  show  it. 

Q.  Then,  after  you  got  there,  when  that  was  read  over  to  you,  did  you  say, 
"  I  did  not  say  '  kicking  ;'  Karsner  said  '  kicking'  to  me.''     Did  you  say  that  ? 

A.  No  ;   I  did  Plot. 

Q.  Then  did  you  not  say,  when  asked  for  any  explanation,  that  it  was  play- 
ful ;  was  not  that  the  only  explanation  you  gave? 

A.  I  said  it  was  playful  on  my  part. 

Q.  Was  not  that  the  only  explanation  you  gave  before  the  managers  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect ;  I  suppose  it  was,  though. 

Q.  Was  not  Mr.  Karsner  then  called  up  and  asked  whether  it  appeared  play- 
ful to  him? 

A.  Yes  ;  he  was. 

Q.  And  did  not  he  testify  to  you  that  it  was  not  playful  at  all,  but  that  you 
seemed  to  be  very  earnest  1 

A.  Yes  ;  he  did. 

Q.  And  did  he  not  illustrate  your  earnestness  by  the  way  you  brought  your- 
self down? 

A.  That  is  one  point  where  I  say  he  was  mistaken.  He  applied  that  to  the 
time  I  said  we  would  kick  him  out.  He  applied  it  to  that,  which  was  not  the 
case.  It  was  the  third  time  he  asked  me  to  stand  firm ;  then  I  straightened 
myself  up  in  that  way. 

Q.  And  you  think  he  applied  it  to  the  time  you  were  to  kick  him  out? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  object  then  that  you  yourself  did  not  use  the  words  "  Kick  him 
out"/" 

A.  No  ;  I  did  not.  I  said  it  was  in  answer  to  a  question  from  him.  I  have 
had  time  to  think  that  matter  over  after  I  was  called  up  there,  and  I  have  gone 
over  the  whole  in  my  own  mind  after  I  got  home. 

Q.  That  was  the  13th  of  March  you  were  asked  before  us,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Allow  me  to  ask  if  you  will  allow  us  to  have  a  copy  of  the 
testimony  to  which  you  are  now  referring — Mr.  Karsner's  testimony  before  the 
managers. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  With  great  pleasure.  I  gave  it  to  Mr.  Stanbery  when 
Mr.  Karsner  was  here. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  was  about  to  make  a  motion  to  adjourn. 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  about  through.     I  will  be  through  in  a  minute. 
(To  the  witness.)     Upon  your  reinstatement  in  office  as  Adjutant  Greneral  did 
you  address  the  clerks  ? 

29  I  p 


450  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  did  make  a  sjiort  address  to  each  section  of  them.  I  sent  for  the  officers 
iu  charge  and  told  them  I  would  like  to  see  the  clerks. 

Q.  Was  that  within  three  days  of  the  time  you  were  appointed  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim,  ? 

A.  It  was  between  the  time  I  was  reinstated  as  Adjutant  General  and  the 
time  I  was  appointed  Secretary  of  AYar  ;   I  do  not  recollect  what  particular  day. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  The  witness  is 
yourt,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Stanbkry.  We  will  ask  some  questions. 

Mr.  Hendekso.x.  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  do 
now  adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Senate  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeach- 
ment adjourned. 


Saturday,  April  11,  1S6S. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at  12 
o'clock  and.  five  minutes  p.  m.,  and  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  pai"t  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  also  appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  headed  by  Mr.  E.  B.  Wash- 
burne,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker  and 
clerk,  entered  the  Senate  chamber  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  provided  for 
them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  minutes  of  the  last  day's 
proceedings. 

The  Secretary  read  the  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  of  the  Senate 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the  President,  you  will  pro- 
ceed with  your  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham,  Mr.  President,  before  the  counsel  for  the  accused 
proceed,  I  desire  to  say  that  the  managers  wish  to  move  the  Senate  for  such 
change  of  rule  twenty-one  of  the  proceedings  in  this  trial  as  will  allow  the 
managers  and  the  counsel  for  the  President  to  be  heard  on  the  final  argument, 
subject  to  the  provision  of  the  rule  as  it  stands  that  the  argument  shall  be 
opened  and  closed  by  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Siiermax.  I  should  like  to  have  the  proposition  repeated.  I  could  not 
hear  it  distinctly. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorable  manager  will  please  reduce  his  propo- 
sition to  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Bl\fiHA.M.  I  will.  [After  writing  the  proposition.]  ]\Ir.  Pres- 
ident, I  desire  to  read  the  motion  as  reduced  to  writing. 

Mr.  CoNKLlNG.  I  beg  U)  state  that  the  voice  of  the  manager  is  entirely 
inaudible  here. 

Mr.  Manager  Bi.xuha.m.  "The  managers  move  the  Senate  to  so  amend  rule 
twenty-one  as  to  allow  such  of  the  managers  as  desire  to  be  heard,  and  also  such 
of  the  counsel  for  the  President  as  desire  to  be  heard,  to  speak  on  the  final 
argument,  subject  to  the  provision  of  the  rule  that  the  final  argument  shall  be 
opened  and  closed  by  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House." 

The  Chief  Justice.  S(mators,  it  is  moved  by  the  managers  on  the  part  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  that  the  twenty-first  rule  be  so  modified  as  to 
allow  as  many  on  the  part  of  the  managers  and  as  many  on  the  part  of  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  451 

counsel  for  the  President  to  be  heard  as  may  see  fit  to  address  the  Senate  in 
the  final  argument. 

Mr.  PoMEROY.  Mr.  President,  as  that  is  in  the  nature  of  a  resolution,  under 
our  general  rule  it  should  lie  over  one  day  for  consideration. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  was  about  to  observe  that  the  propo- 
sition required  sgnie  answer  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and  that  it  would  be 
proper  for  some  senator  to  make  a  motion  in  respect  to  it. 

Mr.  Blckalew.  I  move   that  the  resolution  be  laid  over  for  consideration 
until  to-morrow, 
/rhe  Chief  Justice.  It  goes  over,  of  course,  if  there  be  objection. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  would  inquire  of  the  Chair  whetlier  the  twenty-first  rule 
does  not  now  provide  by  its  terms  that  this  privilege  may  be  extended  to  the  man- 
agers and  the  counsel  if  the  Senate  so  order ;  and  I  would  therefore  inquire 
whether  any  amendment  of  the  rule  be  necessary  if  the  Senate  should  desire  to 
extend  that  privilege  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Certainly  not.  It  is  competent  for  any  senator  to 
move  such  an  order ;  but  the  Chair  has  yet  heard  no  motion  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Frelimghuysbn.  Mr.  President,  I  make  the  motion  that  the  order  be 
adopted.  It  of  course  is  not  necessary  that  it  should  lie  over,  as  it  is  provided 
for  in  the  rule  that  this  order  may  be  adopted. 

Mr.  PoMEROY.  I  have  no  objection  to  taking  the  vote  now,  if  it  is  desired.  I 
do  not  care  to  have  it  lie  over  to  another  day. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  New  Jersey  will  please  reduce  his 
order  to  writing. 

Mr.  Sherman.  If  it  is  in  order  I  will  move  that  the  twenty-first  rule  be 
relaxed  so  as  to  allow  three  persons  on  each  side  to  speak  under  the  rule,  instead 
of  two. 

The  Chief  Justice.  That  motion  will  be  in  order  as  an  amendment  to  the 
order  proposed  by  the  senator  from  New  Jersey. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  withdraw  it  for  the  present  to  allow  the  vote  to  be  taken  on 
that. 

The  order  proposed  by  Mr.  Frelinghuysen  having  been  reduced  to  writing 
and  sent  to  the  desk — 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  New  Jersey. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  as  many  of  the  managers  and  of  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  be  per- 
mitted to  speak  on  the  liual  argument  as  shall  choose  to  do  so. 

The  Chief  Justice.  That  order  will  be  considered  now,  unless  objected  to. 

Mr.  Howard.  Mr.  President,  I  hope  that  order  will  be  laid  over  until  the 
next  day's  session. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  objecter^  to,  it  will  lie  over. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  object. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  Ah  objection  does  not  carry  it  over,  does  it? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chair  thinks  it  does. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  It  does  not  change  the  rule.  The  rule  provides  for  this 
very  thing  being  done,  if  the  Senate  choose  to  allow  it. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  Mr.  President,  may  I  inquire  under  what  rule  of  the  Sen- 
ate thus  organized  it  is  that  this  motion  lies  over  upon  the  objection  of  a  single 
senator? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice,  in  conducting  the  business  of  the 
court,  adopts  for  his  general  guidance  the  rules  of  the  Senate  sitting  in  legis- 
lative session  as  far  as  they  are  applicable.    That  is  the  ground  of  his  decision. 

Mr.  CoNKLlNG.  The  reason  for  my  inquiry  was  this  :  the  very  ride  we  are  dis- 
cussing provides  that  a  certain  thing  shall  happen  "  unless  otherwise  ordered  ;" 
and  I  supposed  a  motion  otherwise  to  order  was  always  in  order. 


452  IMPEA.CHMENT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  It  is  competent  for  the  senatorfrom  New  York  to  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  the  Chief  Justice. 

Mr.  Co.\KLii\G.  Oh,  no,  sir ;  I  merely  made  the  point  by  way  of  suggestion 
to  the  Chair. 

Mr.  JoHXSON.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  appeal  to  the  honorable  member  from 
Michigan  to  withdraw 

The  Chief  Justice.  No  debate  is  in  order. 

Mr.  JoH.\so.\.  I  am  not  about  to  debate  it,  sir.  If  they  are  to  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  addressing  the  Senate  they  ought  at  once  to  know  it  on  both  sides. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the  President,  you  will  please 
to  proceed  with  the  defence. 

Lorenzo  Thomas — examination  continued  : 

Mr.  Stanbery.  General  Thomas  wishes  to  make  some  explanatory  state- 
ments. 

The  Witness.  I  wish  to  correct  my  testimony  yesterday  in  one  or  two  par- 
ticulars. I  read  a  letter  signed  by  Mr.  Stanton  addressed  to  me  on  the  21st  ot 
February.  The  date  misled  me ;  I  did  not  receive  a  copy  of  that  letter  until 
the  next  day  after  I  had  made  the  demand  for  the  office.  The  Secretary  came 
in  and  handed  mo  the  original,  and  my  impression  is  that  I  noted  on  tliat  original 
its  receipt.  It  was  then  handed  to  General  Townsend,  who  made  the  copy  that 
I  read  here,  and  handed  it  to  me.  I  had  it  not  until  after  the  demand  on  the 
22d  of  February. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Then  when  you  saw  the  President,  on  the  afternoon  of  the  21st,  you  had 
not  yet  received  that  letter  from  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  You  then  stood  upon  the  interview  which  you  referred  to  ? 

A.  I  did.  The  next  correction  I  want  to  make  is  that  I  am  made  to  say  here 
that  the  President  told  me  "  to  take  possession  of  the  office."  His  expression 
was  "  take  charge  of  the  office." 

Q.  Are  you  certain  that  that  was  his  expression  ? 

A.  Positive.  I  was  asked  if  I  could  give  the  date  of  ray  brevet  commission. 
I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  important  or  not,  but  I  have  it  here. 

Q.  What  is  the  date? 

A.  The  brevet  of  major  general  13th  of  March,  1865. 

Q.  Upon  whose  recommendation  was  that  ?     Who  first  suggested  it  ? 

A.  Mr.  Stanton  gave  it  to  me. 

Q.  DTd  you  ask  hnn  for  it  or  did  he  volunteer  it  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  not  in  the  nature  of  correction  or  of  expla- 
nation. 

Mr.  Stanhfuy.  lie  could  not  get  it  yesterday.  It  was  an  omitted  fact,  and 
he  passed  it  until  he  could  get  his  commission. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Very  good. 
By  Mr  Stanbery  : 

Q.  How  was  it;  asked  for  or  voluntarily  tendered? 

A.  He  had  more  than  once  said  he  intended  to  give  it  to  me,  and  on  this  occa- 
sion, when  I  came  from  some  important  duty,  I  said  that  the  time  had  arrived 
when  I  ought  to  have  this  commission.  He  said  "certainly,"  and  gave  it  to  me 
at  once.     I  do  not  think  he  ever  intended  to  withhold  it. 

There  is  another  point  I  want  to  state.  When  I  was  before  the  committee,  or 
the  honorable  managers.  General  Butler  asked  the  clerk,  I  think  it  was,  for  the 
testimony  of  Dr.  Burli;igh.  He  said  he  had  it  not;  that  it  was  at  his  home.  I 
do  not  know  wh(!ther  I  said  or  he  said,  "  It  makes  no  difference."  He  asked 
me  a  number  of  questions  in  reference  to  that.  I  assented  to  them  all.  I  never 
heard  that  testimony  read. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  453 

Q.  You  never  heard  Dr.  Burleigh's  testimony  read  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  nor  do  I  recollect  tlie  particular  questions,  except  that  thoy  were 
asked  me,  and  I  assented.  I  said  that  Dr.  Burleigh,  no  doubt,  would  recollect 
the  conversation  better  than  1. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  General  Thomas,  how  many  times  yesterday  did  you  answer  that  the 
President  told  you  each  time  to  "  take  possession  of  the  office  ?" 

A.  I  have  not  read  over  my  testimony  particularly.  I  do  not  know  how 
many  times. 

Q.  Was  that  untrue  each  time  you  said  it  ? 

A.  If  1  said  so,  it  was.     "  Take  charge  "  were  the  words  of  the  President. 

Q.  Have  you  any  memorandum  by  which  you  can  correct  that  expression  ? 
If  so,  produce  it. 

A.   I  have  no  memorandum  with  me  here ;  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  any. 

Q.  Have  you  looked  at  one  since  you  were  on  the  stand  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  How  can  you  tell  better  to-day  than  you  could  yesterday  1 

A.  Because  I  read  that  evidence  as  recorded. 

Q    You  gave  it  yesterday  yourself? 

A.  1  did. 

Q.  And  you  could  know  better  what  it  was  by  reading  it  than  when  you  tes- 
tified to  it  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  are  sure  the  word  was  "  charge  "  each  time  ? 

A.  "  Take  charge  of." 

Q.  And  then  the  three  times  when  you  reported  to  him  that  Stanton  woiald 
not  go  out,  refused  to  go  out,  each  time  he  said,  "  Take  charge  of  the  office?" 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Was  your  attention  called  at  the  time  he  said  that  to  the  difference  be- 
tween taking  "  charge  "  of  the  office  and  taking  "  possession  "  of  it  ? 

A.  My  attention  was  not  called  to  it. 

Q.  How,  then,  do  you  so  carefully  make  that  distinction  now  in  your  mind  ? 

A.  Because  I  know  that  that  was  his  expression.  I  have  thought  the  matter 
over. 

Q.  You  have  always  known  that  that  was  his  expression,  have  you  not  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  have  thought  the  matter  over  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Well,  then,  how  could  you  make  such  a  mistake  yesterday  ? 

A.  I  think  the  words  were  put  into  my  mouth.     I  do  not  recollect  distinctly. 

Q.  The  same  as  Karsner  put  in  about  the  "  kicking  out?" 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  are  rather  in  the  habit,  are  you,  when  words  are  put  into  your 
mouth,  of  using  them? 

A.  1  am  not  always  in  the  habit. 

Q.  Why  was  yesterday  an  exception  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  why  it  was  an  exception, 

Q.  I  want  to  ask  you  another  question  on  another  subject  which  was  omitted 
yesterday. 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  After  you  and  Karsner  were  summoned  here  as  witnesses,  did  you  go  and 
quarrel  with  him  ? 

A.  I  had  some  words  with  him  in  the  room  here  adjoining. 

Q.  Did  you  call  him  a  liar  and  a  perjurer? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  called  him  a  liar  and  perjurer,  did  you? 


454  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  think  I  did  both ;   I  certainly  did  call  liim  a  liar. 
Q.  And  a  perjurer  ? 

A.  I  think  it  is  probable  I  did  ;  but  the  "  liar"  I  know. 

Q.  You  knew  that  he  and  you  both  were  iu  the  witness-room  waiting  to  be 
called  ? 

A.  I  was  here. 

Q.  And  you  knew  he  was  here  for  that  purpose  1 
A.  I  presume  I  did  ;  yes. 

Q,  And  while  lie  was  there  you  undertook  to  talk  with  him  about  his  testi- 
mony ? 

A.  I  stated  to  him  in  the  two  instances ;  I  will  give  them  to  you 

Q.  Just  answer  my  question,  sir ;  I  have  not  asked  you  wliat  you  said.  I 
only  ask  you  this  question,  whether  you  undertook  to  talk  with  him  about  his 
testimony  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  who  introduced  the  conversation.  It  was  certainly  not  I, 
I  do  not  think,  for  he  was  there  some  time  before  I  spoke  to  him. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  first  or  he  1 

A.  That  T  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Now,  then,  did  you  tell  him  that  he  was  a  liar  and  a  perjurer  at  that  time? 

A.  I  did  tell  him  he  was  a  liar,  and  I  may  have  said  he  was  a  perjurer. 

Q.  Did  you  offer  violence  to  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  violently  to  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not,  except  in  that  way. 

Q.  Were  you  then  in  full  uniform  as  now  ? 

A.  As  I  am  now. 

Q.  There  is  another  question  I  want  to  ask  you  Avhich  was  omitted.  Do 
you  still  intend  to  take  charge  or  possession  of  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Have  you  said  to  any  person  within  a  few  days,  "  we'll  have  that  fellow," 
meaning  Stanton,  "  out,  if  it  sinks  the  ship]" 

A.  Never. 

Q.  Did  you  say  so  to  Mr.  Johnson  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Anything  to  that  effect  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  have  any  recollection  of. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  you  did  or  not  ? 

A.  What  Mr.  Johnson  do  you  mean  ? 

Q.  Mr.  B.  B.  Johnson. 

A.  There  was  a  Mr.  Johnson  came  to  see  me  at  my  house  in  reference  to 
another  matter,  and  we  may  have  had  some  conversation  about  this. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  that  Mr.  Johnson  came  to  your  house  to  see  you  about 
another  matter  ? 

A.  That  1  hardly  recollect. 

Q.  About  how  long. 

A.  I  am  trying  to  recollect  now.     He  came  to  mc  about  the  business 

Q.  Never  mind  what  his  business  was.     When  was  it  ? 

A.  But  I  want  to  call  it  to  mind.     I  have  a  right  to  do  that,  I  think. 

Q.  But  not  to  state  it. 

A.  I  took  no  note  of  the  time,  and  I  can  hardly  tell.  It  was  recently,  not 
very  long  ago. 

Q.  Within  two  or  three  days  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  before  that  time. 

Q.  Within  a  week  1 

A.  I  think  it  is  more  than  a  week. 

Q.  Let  me  give  you  thetlate — on  Friday,  a  week  ago  yesterday  ? 

A.  I  cannot  srive  the  date.     1  do  not  know  it. 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PRESIDENT.  455 

Q.  Was  it  long:er  than  that  ? 

A.  Well,  I  did  not  charge  my  memory  with  it.  It  was  a  familiar  conversa- 
tion we  had. 

Q.  Were  you  joking  then? 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Oh  !  joking  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you,  jokingly  or  otherwise,  say  these  words  :  "  And  we'll  have  Stan- 
ton out  of  there  if  we  have  to  sink  the  ship  ?" 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  making  use  of  that  expression. 

Q.  Did  you  make  use  of  one  eq^uivalent  to  that  in  substance  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  Have  you  such  a  recollection  of  what  you  say  as  to  know  whether  you 
did  or  not  ? 

A.  I  have  not.  I  would  rather  he  would  testify  himself;  he  knows  it  better 
than  I.     I  cannot  recollect  all  the  conversation  I  had. 

Q.  Do  3'ou  deny  that  you  said  so  ? 

A.  I  cannot  deny  it,  because  I  do  not  know  that  I  did. 

Q.  You  say  you  would  rather  he  would  testify  ;  and  I  will  try  to  oblige  you 
in  that  respect ;  but  if  you  did  say  so,  was  it  true  or  merely  more  brag  1 

A    You  may  call  it  as  you  please  ;  brag,  if  you  say  so. 

Q.  I  do  not  want  to  put  words  into  your  mouth  ;  what  do  you  call  it  1 

A.  I  do  not  call  it  "  bi-ag." 

Q.  What  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  a  mere  conversation,  whatever  it  may  have  been. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  what  you  said,  or  did  you  say  what  you  did  not  mean  ? 

A.  I  did  not  mean  to  use  any  violence  against  Mr.  Stanton  to  get  him  out 
of  office. 

Q.  What  did  you  mean  by  the  expression,  "  We'll  have  him  out  if  it  sinks 
the  ship  ?  " 

A.  I  have  said  that  I  do  not  know  that  I  used  that  expression. 

Q.  You  have  told  me  also  that  Mr.  Johnson  can  tell  better.  I  am  assuming 
now  you  did  say  it  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  you  have  no  right  to  do.     Mr.  Johnson  has  not  said  so  yet. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  This  witness  does  not  say  he  did  not  say  so. 

]\Ir.  EvARTS.  That  is  another  matter.     You  have  not  proved  it  yet. 

The  Witness.  I  cannot  say.  He  was  there  on  official  business  in  reference 
to  an  officer  dismissed  from  the  army. 

Q.  Official  business  1 

A.  I  mean  business  connected  with  an  officer  dismissed  from  the  army. 

Q.  Then  you  were  joking  on  the  subject? 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Johnson  before  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection.     It  is  possible  I  may  have  seen  him. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  since  ? 

A.  I  have  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Now,  here  was  a  stranger  who  called  on  you  on  official  business,  business 
pertaining  to  your  office  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Official  business  about  getting  a  man  reinstated  who  had  been  dismissed  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Very  good.     He  called  upon  you  on  business  connected  with  the  army  ? 

A.  That  had  nothing  to  do  with  my  office. 

Q.   Now,  did  you  go  to  joking  with  him,  a  total  stranger,  in  this  way  ? 

A.  I  knew  him  as  the  lawyer  employed  by  Colonel  Belger  to  get  him  rein- 
stated, and  Colonel  Belger  sent  him  to  me.     Now  you  have  got  it. 


456  IMPEACHMENT    OF    TBE    PRESIDENT. 

Q,  Was  lie  a  stranger  to  you  ? 

A.  I  think  he  was. 

Q.  Now,  then,  being  a  stranger,  having  that  fixed,  will  you  answer,  did  you 
go  to  joking  with  this  stranger  on  such  a  subject  ? 

A.  Certainly.  We  had  quite  a  familiar  talk  when  he  was  there.  He  sat 
with  me  for  some  time. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  only  explanation  you  can  give  of  that  expression  ? 

A.  That  is  sufficient,  I  think. 

Q.  Whether  it  is  sufficient  or  not  somebody  else  will  judge  ;  is  it  the  only  one 
you  can  give  ? 

A.  It  is  the  only  one  I  do  give. 

Q.  And  it  is  the  only  one  you  can  give  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  A  single  word  now  upon  another  subject;  did  anybody  talk  with  you 
about  your  testimony  since  you  left  the  stand  ? 

A.  Since  I  left  the  stand  1 

Q.  Yes  ;  since  yesterday  1 

A.  Well,  I  suppose  I  have  talked  with  a  dozen  persons. 

Q.  Such  as  whom  ? 

A.  Several  persons  met  me  and  said  they  were  veiy  glad  to  hear  my  tepti- 
mouy.  We  did  not  enter  into  any  particulars  about  it.  I  have  been  met 
t  o-day  jocularly  about  taking  an  equal  drink  with  the  Secrc^tary  of  War  by 
two  or  three  persons.     I  have  talked  in  my  own  family  about  it. 

Q.  Has  anybody  talked  to  you  about  these  points,  or  have  you  talked  to 
anybody  about  these  points  where  you  have  changed  your  testimony  ? 

A.  I  came  here  this  morning  and  saw  the  managers,  and  told  them  whoreiu 
I  wanted 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  managers  !     You  do  not  mean  that  quite  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  counsel  for  the  President. 

The  Witness.  I  saw  the  counsel  for  the  President,  and  told  them  I  wished 
to  make  corrections. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  did  not  mean  the  managers ;  you  meant  the 
counsel  ? 

A.  I  meant  the  counsel ;  these  gentlemen  sitting  here,  [pointing  to  the  coun- 
sel for  the  President.] 

Q.  That  you  had  a  perfect  right  to  do.  Had  you  talked  with  anybody 
before  that  about  these  points  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Whom? 

A.  General  Townsend  this  morning. 

Q.  The  Assistant  Adjutant  (Jeueial] 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Anybody  else  ? 

A.  About  these  points? 

Q.  Exactly. 

A.  No. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  ? 

A.  1  have  said  no.     I  am  sure. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  did  you  not  receive  a  letter  from  Mr.  Stanton,  whether  a  copy 
or  uot,  on  the  2l8t  of  February? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  said  that  he  gave  you  the  original,  and  the  date  is  noted.  Have 
you  seen  that  original  ? 

A.  Since'/ 

Q.  Yes. 

A.  I  have  not. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  457 

Q.  Tlie  date  was  noted  on  that  original.  When  was  that  original  given 
you? 

A.  The  one  I  read  here  on  the  22d  ? 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you,  "the  one  you  read  here" — the  original;  when  was 
that  given  you  ? 

A.  On  the  22d. 

Q.  Did  you  have  more  than  one  paper  given  you  ? 

A.  That  was  handed  to  me,  and  then  it  was  handed  to  General  Townsend, 
who  made  a  copy,  and  the  Secretary  gave  me  the  copy  which  I  read  here.  The 
other  paper  I  have  not  seen. 

Q,.  And  that  was  the  22d  ? 

A.  On  the  22d,  dated  the  21st.     . 

Q.  Prepared,  then,  the  day  before? 

A.  1  suppose  so.     It  has  the  date  of  the  day  before. 

Q.  Then  do  you  mean  to  take;  all  back  that  was  said  in  the  room  of  Mr. 
Schriver  about  your  not  going  on  with  the  of3fice,  or  their  not  obeying  you  on 
the  afternoon  of  the  21st  1 

A.  Oh,  yes  ;  it  was  the  22d,  because  General  Townsend  was  not  there  on 
the  21st. 

Q.  Then  on  the  21st  there  was  nothing  said  about  his  not  obeying  you? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Nothing  said  to  Schriver  about  not  obeying  you  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Then  there  was  nothing  said  about  not  obeying  you  on  the  21st  at  all? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  And  you  never  reported  to  the  President  that  Stanton  would  not  obey  you 
on  the  21st? 

A.  I  reported  to  the  President  the  two  conversations  I  had  with  him. 

Q.  What  were  the  two  ?  The  one  in  Schriver's  room  seems  to  have  gone 
out.     What  were  the  two  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  There  were  two  besides  that,  Mr.  Butler. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  The  witness  will  tell  me. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  But  you  said  it  was  not  so. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  did  not.     I  said  that  one  seemed  to  have  gone  out. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  One  of  the  conversations.     That  was  not  one  of  the  two. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  know  that. 

The  Witness.  General  Schriver  did  not  hear  either  of  these  conversations. 

Q.  Then  on  the  21st  there  was  no  such  conversation  that  you  testified  to? 

A.  Not  in  reference  to  that  letter — no. 

Q.  Was  there  any  conversation  at  all  as  to  General  Townsend's  not  obeying 
you,  or  General  Schriver's  not  obeying  you,  on  the  21st? 

A.  None. 

Q.  Then  what  you  told  us  yesterday,  that  you  reported  that  to  the  President 
and  got  his  answer  to  that — all  that  was  not  so,  was  it? 

A.  All  that  was  not  so. 

Q.  Now,  upon  another  matter.  When  you  were  examined  before  the  com- 
mittee  

A.  Which  committee? 

Q.  The  committee 

A.  I  have  been  examined  twice.     I  only  want  to  know. 

Q.  The  committee  of  the  House,  not  the  managers.  You  Avei-e  asked  this 
question :  "  Did  you  make  any  report  to  the  President  on  Friday  of  what  had 
transpired,"  and  did  you  not  answer  in  these  words:  "Yes,  sir;  I  saw  the 
President  and  told  him  of  what  had  occurred."  He  said,  'Well,  go  along  and 
administer  the  department.'      When*  I  stated  what  had   occm-red  with  Mr. 


458  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

Stanton,  he  said  to  me,  '  You  must,  just  take  possession  of  the  department  and 
carry  on  the  business.'  "     Did  you  so  sw^ear  before  the  committee!' 

The  witness  not  replying — 

Q.  Let  me  give  you  the  words  again  ? 

A.  1  thought  you  were  waiting  for  somebody  else.  I  say  as  I  said  before, 
the  words  were  :  "  Take  charge  " 

Q.  That  is  not  the  question. 

A.  What  is  the  question  ? 

Q.  The  question  is  this  :  in  answer  to  a  question  which  I  will  read  again  to  show 
you  that  the  words  were  not  put  in  your  mouth,  in  these  words,  "  Did  you  make 
any  report  to  the  President  on  Friday  of  what  had  transpired,"  did  you  not 
answer  in  these  words,  "Yes,  sir;  I  saw  the  President,  and  told  him  what  had 
occurred."  He  said,  '  Well,  go  along  and  administer  the  diqiartment.'  And 
did  you  not  proceed  to  state,  "W^hen  I  stated  what  had  occurred  with  Mr. 
Stanton,  he  said  '  You  must  just  take  possession  of  the  department  and  carry 
on  the  business.' "  Now,  sir,  did  you  swear  that  ?  That  is  the  only  thing  I 
asked  you. 

A.  If  that  is  there  I  suppose  I  swore  to  it.  I  want  to  make  one  statement, 
though. 

Q.  Was  it  true  1 

A.  No  ;  the  word  used  was  the  other. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness.  I  wish  to  make  one  statement  in  reference  to  that  very  thing. 
I  think  I  ought  to  do  it.  I  was  called  there  hastily.  There  were  a  good  many 
events  that  had  transpired.  I  requested  on  two  occasions  that  committee  to  let 
me  wait  and  consider,  and  they  refused,  would  not  let  me  do  it,  pressed  me  with 
questions  all  the  time. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  How  was  that  1 

A.  When  I  was  called  before  that  committee  on  the  evening  of 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  February  26. 

The  Witness.  On  the  evening  of  the  day  of  my  trial.  I  went  there  after 
getting  through  with  that  trial.  I  on  two  occasions  reqiu^sted  them  to  postpone 
the  examination  until  the  next  morning,  or  until  I  could  go  over  the  matter. 
That  was  not  allowed  me. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  such  request  ? 

A.  I  (lid  twice. 

Q.  Of  whom  did  you  make  it  ? 

A.  To  those  who  were  there. 

Q.  Who  was  there  ? 

A.  I  think  the  committee  was  pretty  full. 

Q.  The  committee  on  prepiii-ing  the  articles  of  impeachment  were  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  committee  you  mean,  and  the  committee  was  full? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  jMr.  Stevens  was  there.  He  was  there  a  portion 
of  the  time.     I  do  not  know  whether  he  was  there  at  this  particular  time. 

Q.  And  you  tell  the  Senate  now  on  your  oath  that  you  requested  the  com- 
mittee to  give  you  time  to  answer  the  (juestions,  and  they  refused  you  ? 

A.  I  requested  that  it  might  be  deferred  until  the  next  morning,  when  I  could 
have  an  o])portunity  to  go  over  in  my  own  mind  those  things.  It  was  not 
granted.  There  was  no  refusal  given,  but  I  was  still  pressed  with  questions. 
1'hen  there  is  another  matter  I  want  to  speak  about — when  1  came  to  correct 
that  testimony.  There  are  two  things  there  that  are  confounded  in  reference  to 
dates  ;  the  first  part  of  it,  the  date  of  my  appointment  as  Adjutant  Oeneraland 
that  of  my  appointment  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim — I  supposed  they  were 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  459 

asking  me  in  reference  to  the  former,  and  tliat  is  the  reason  those  two  questions 
got  mixed  up.  Then  when  I  went  there  to  correct  my  testimony  I  wished  to 
do  it.  I  read  it  over  and  found  that  some  of  it  was  not  in  English,  and  I  thought 
there  was  something  taken  down,  and  I  believe  there  was,  that  I  did  not  say. 
They  would  not  permit  me  to  correct  the  manuscript,  but  I  put  something  at 
the  bottom  just  in  a  hasty  way.  I  suppose  it  is  on  1  hat  paper,  [pointing  to  a 
manuscript  iu  the  hand  of  Mr.  Manager  ]3utler.]     I  do  not  know. 

Q.  I  will  come  to  that.  Now,  then,  have  you  got  through  with  your  state- 
ment? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Very  well;  then  you  will  answer  me  a  few  questions.  Did  you  not  come 
and  ask  to  see  your  testimony  as  it  Avas  taken  down  by  that  committee  ? 

A.  I  went  to  the  clerk  and  saw  him. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  the  report  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  ? 

A.  He  was  not  in  ;  and  I  came  the  next  day,  the  second  day,  and  he  handed 
it  to  me ;  and  twice  he  went,  I  think,  to  some  member  of  the  committee ;  I  do 
not  know  who.  I  said  I  wished  to  correct  it ;  I  wanted  to  make  it  at  least 
decent  English  in  some  respects ;  but  I  was  informed  that  I  could  not  correct 
the  manuscript ;  that  I  might 

Q.  He  reported  to  you  that  you  might  make  any  corrections  in  writing  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  did  you  read  the  whole  testimony  over? 

A.  I  think  I  did  ;  I  am  not  certain  about  that. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  you  did? 

A.  No  ;  I  do  not  know  that  I  did. 

Q.  What  were  you  there  for? 

A.  I  came  there  to  correct  the  first  part  of  it  particularly,  and  that  was  the 
reason  1  went  there.     I  took  it  for  granted  that  the  rest  was  correct. 

Q.  You  did  not  want  to  correct  any  other  portion  of  it  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  And  the  first  part  of  it  only  referred  to  the  mistake  in  the  time  about  your 
being  made  Adjutant  General  or  being  made  Secretary  of  War  ? 

A.  It  had  reference  to  the  notification  given  me  more  particularly. 

Q.  By  the  President  ? 

A.  I  had  stated  the  notification 

Q.  The  notification  by  the  President  to  be  Secretary  of  War  or  Adjutant 
General,  that  was  mixed? 

A.  That  was  mixed. 

Q.  That  was  what  you  wanted  to  correct  ? 

A..  I  stated  that  I  received  that  notification  from  Colonel  Moore.  Colonel 
Moore  did  give  mp  the  notification  that  I  would  probably  be  put  back  as  Adju- 
tant General,  but  he  did  not  as  Secretary  of  War. 

Q.  That  was  what  you  wished  to  correct  ? 

A.  That  was  the  principal  correction  I  wished  to  make. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  want  to  correct  anything  else  ? 

A.  If  there  was  anything  wrong,  I  did.  My  corrections  are  there,  whatever 
they  may  be.     I  suppose  that  is  the  paper. 

Q.  You  then  went  over  your  testimony,  did  you  not,  and  corrected  such  por- 
tions as  you  pleased  ? 

A.  Oh,  I  had  full  privilege  to  do  that,  of  course. 

Q.  And  wrote  out  here  portions  of  two  sheets,  which  are  in  your  handwrit- 
ing, are  they  not,  of  corrections  ?     Showing  the  pages  to  the  witness. 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  corrected  in  my  own  handwriting. 

Q.  And  signed  it  "  L.  Thomas,  Adjutant  General  ?" 

A.  Yes,  sir.  There  are  not  two  sheets,  however.  There  is  one  sheet  and  a 
little  more. 


460  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  I  said  portions  of  two  sheets.  Now,  sir,  having  read  over  your  testimony 
and  attempted  to  correct  it,  did  you  correct  anything  in  this  portion  in  which 
you  are  reported  as  saying  that  the  President  ordered  you  to  go  forward  and 
take  possession  and  administer  the  office  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  made  any  such  correction  as  that. 

Q.  You  have  sworn  that  it  was  not  true.      Why  did  you  not  correct  it? 

A.  I  have  said  so  because  I  know  his  expression. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  correct  it  before  ? 

A.  Well,  I  have  thought  the  matter  over. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery: 

Q.  General  Thomas,  I  find  a  report  of  your  testimony  as  given  yesterday,  as 
as  you  gave  it  originally  on  the  examination  as  to  the  first  interview  with  the 
President,  which  1  will  now  read  to  you  and  see  whether  it  is  correctly  reported  : 

Q.  What  occurred  between  the  President  and  yourself  at  the  second  interview  on  the^lst 
of  Febrnaiy  ? 

Witness.  I  stated  to  the  President  that  I  had  delivered  the  communication,  and  that  he 
gave  this  answer. 

Mr.  Stanukry.  What  answer? 

Witness.  The  answer,  "Do  you  wish  me  to  vacate  at  once,  or  will  you  give  me  time  to 
take  away  my  private  property?"  and  that  I  answered  "At  your  pleasure."  I  then  stated 
tliat  after  delivering  the  copy  of  the  letter  to  him  he  said,  "I  do  not  know  whether  I  will 
obey  your  instructions  or  resist  them." 

The  Witness.  I  said  "act  your  pleasure." 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Now,  the  point  of  your  answer  I  wish  to  bring  to  your  atten- 
tion is  this  : 

This  I  mentioned  to  the  President.  His  answer  was,  ' '  Very  well ;  go  on  and  take  charge 
of  the  office  and  perform  the  duty." 

Did  you  say  that  ? 

A.  I  said  that. 

Q.  It  was  in  the  cross-examination  that  this  "  possession  "  came  out,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler: 

Q.  Then  you  mean  to  say  that  in  answer  to  Mr.  Stanbery  you  put  it  all  right 
yesterday,  and  in  the  answer  to  me  you  got  it  all  wrong  1 

A.  In  reference  to  your  examination. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  will  see  how  your  examination  was  by  and  by.  We 
shall  want  General  Thomas  as  to  Avhat  took  place  on  the  trial  after  we  put  in 
the  record. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Call  him  in  at  any  time;  we  shall  always  be  glad  to 
see  him.     [Laughter.] 

General  Thomas.  Thank  you,  sir. 

William  T.  Sherman  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 
Q.  General  Sherman,  Avere  you  in  Washington  last  winter? 
A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  arrive  here? 
A.  About  the  4th  of  December  last. 
Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  here  ? 
A.  Two  months. 

Q.  Till  the  4th  of  February,  or  about  that  time? 
A.  Until  about  the  3d  or  4th  of  February. 
Q.  On  what  business  had  you  come? 

A.  I  came  as  a  meml)er  of  the  Indian  peace  commissiou  by  adjournment. 
Q.  Any  other  business  at  that  time  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  461 

A.  At  that  time  no  other  business.  Subsequently,  by  order,  I  was  assigned 
to  a  board  of  oflicers  organized  under  the  laws  of  Congress  to  submit  articles  of 
war  and  regulations  for  the  army. 

Q.  At  what  (late  was  that  assignment? 

A.  I  could  procure  the  order,  which  would  be  perfect  evidence  of  its  date  ; 
but  I  must  now  state  that  it  was  within  ten  days  of  my  arrival  here  ;  about  tea 
days. 

Q.  About  ten  days  after  your  arrival  here  1 

A.  About  the  middle  of  December  that  order  was  issued. 

Q.  Then  you  had  a  double  duty? 

A.  I  had  a  double  duty  for  a  few  days. 

Q.  During  that  time,  from  the  4th  of  December  until  the  3d  or  4th  of  Feb- 
ruary, had  you  several  interviews  with  the  President? 

A.  I  bad. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  alone,  when  there  was  no  person  present  but  the  Presi- 
dent and  yourself  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  also  in  company  witli  General  Grant  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  in  company  with  General  Grant  once,  and  I  think  twice. 

Q,.  Had  you  several  interviews  with  him  in  relation  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

A.  I  had. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  we  desire,  without  delaying  the 
Senate,  to  respectfully  submit  our  objections  here  again,  without  desiring  to 
argue  it.  We  believe  it  our  duty,  as  the  representatives  of  the  House,  to 
object 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Object  to  what? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  That  the  declarations  of  the  President  touching  any 
matter  involved  in  this  issue,  not  made  at  the  time  when  we  have  called  them 
out  ourselves,  are  not  competent  evidence,  and  desire  to  submit  the  point,  if  such 
is  the  pleasure  of  the  Senate,  to  the  ruling  of  the  presiding  officer. 

Mr.  Stankery.  Allow  me  to  come  to  some  question  that  we  can  get  started 
upon.     This  is  introductory. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  I  understand  it  so. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  You  will  soon  see  what  our  object  is  with  General  Sherman. 
There  will  be  no  mistake  about  it  when  we  come  to  it. 

Mr.  Manager  BiNGHAAf.  1  understand  the  object  is  to  call  out  conversations 
with  the  President. 

The  ChicF  Justice.  At  present  no  such  question  has  been  asked. 

^Ir.  Stanbery.  Now  we  will  come  to  the  point  very  quick.  (To  the  witness.) 
General,  while  you  were  here,  did  the  President  ask  you  if  you  would  take 
charge  of  the  office  of  the  Department  of  War  in  case  of  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Stanton  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  object  to  the  question  and  ask  that  it  be  reduced  to 
writing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  reduce  the  question  to  writing. 
Mr.  Stanbery.  Do  you  object  because  it  is  leading  or  because  of  the  sub- 
stance of  it  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  object  to  it  for  every  reason. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Then  I  will  put  it  in  a  form 

]Mr.  Manager  Butler.  1  beg  your  pardon  ;  put  it  in  writing. 
Mr.  Stanbery.  I  will  lay  a  foundation  first.     (To  the   witness.)     At  what 
time  were  those  interviews  ?     Have  you  a  memorandum  ? 

Tiie  Witness,  (consulting  his  memoranda.)  The  interview  i\'ith  General 
Grant  and  the  President,  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  No;  any  interview.     I  will  ask  you  a  question  that  will 


462  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

relieve  you,  perhaps.     Had  you  interviews  with  the  President  before  Mr.  Stan- 
ton came  back  to  the  office,  while  General  Grant  was  yet  in  it? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  gir;  of  a  social  nature  entirely,  before  that  time. 

Q.  Had  you  iuterviews  with  him  after  that  ? 

A.  I  liad. 

Q.  How  long  after  that ;  after  Mr.  Stanton  came  back  ? 

A.  The  day  following,  I  think. 

Q.  Were  you  and  the  President  alone  at  that  interview  the  day  after? 

A.  General  Grant  was  also  present. 

Q.  What  did  that  interview  relate  to  ? 

A.  The  removal 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  Do  not  get  it  in  indirectly.  Meet 
the  question  man-fashion,  please. 

Mr,  Stanbery.  What  did  it  relate  lo  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  gives  the  substance  of  it.  I  object.  Meet  the 
question. 

Mr.  Stan'bery,  (to  the  witness.)  Did  it  relate  to  the  occupation  of  the  War 
Department  by  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

The  Witness.  It  did. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  We  object.  We  ask  that  it  be  put 
in  writing. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  What  conversation  passed  between  you  and  the  President  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Excuse  me;  I  asked  to  have  the  question  in  writing. 
Shall  I  have  it  ?     I  have  three  times  attempted,  and  each  time  failed. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  the  question  to  writing. 

The  question  having  been  reduced  to  writing,  was  handed  to  and  read  by  the 
Secretary,  as  follows  : 

In  that  iuterview  what  conversation  took  phice  between  the  President  and  you  in  rej^ard 
to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stautou  .' 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  To  that  we  object.  I  suppose  we  can  agree  on  the 
day.  That  must  have  been  the  14th  of  January  last.  On  the  13th  Mr. 
Stanton  was  reinstated;  and  the  14th,  if  it  was  the  day  after,  would  be  the  date. 

Mr.  Stanbery,  (to  the  witness.)  Can  you  give  us  the  day  of  that  conversa- 
tion, general ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  [Consulting  a  memorandum.]  According  to  a  mem- 
orandum which  I  hold  Mr.  Stanton  re-entered  on  the  possession  of  his  office  of 
Secretary  of  War  on  Tuesday,  the  13th.  Monday  was  the  12th,  Tuesday  the 
13th.     The  conversation  occurred  on  Wednesday,  the  14th  of  January. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  the  question  admissible  within 
the  principle  madi;  by  the  decision  of  the  Senate  relating  to  a  conversation 
between  General  Thomas  and  the  President ;  but  he  will  put  the  question  to 
the  Senate,  if  any  scaiator  desires  it. 

Mr.  Con  NESS,  (hi  tliat  1  ask  for  a  vote  and  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  should  like  to  hear  the  grounds  on  which  the  oflfer 
is  made  stated. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  The  managers  ask  me  to  state  the  grounds  upon  which  we 
expect  this  testimony 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  What  then? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  ask  you  simply  for  the  ground  on  which  you  put  it, 
not  the  testimony  ;  the  grounds  on  Avhich  you  can  put  in  any  possible  declara- 
tion, not  the  declaration  itself. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  This  ground  :  we  expect  to  prove  by  General  Sherman 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  463 

Mr.  Manag-er  Butlkr.  I  object,  sir.     I  have  not  asked  that. 

Mr.  Standkky.  Is  it  not  admissible  to  say  what  we  expect  to  prove? 

Mr,  Manager  Butlkr.  No,  sir;  that  is  to  get  before  the  court,  Mr.  Chief 
Justice 

Mr.  Stanbrrv.   "  Get  before  the  court !" 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Get  before  the  court  or  the  Senate — that  I  shoukl  fall 
into  bad  habits  sometimes  is  not  wonderful,  [laughter] — it  is  to  get  before  the 
Senate  the  testimony  by  statements  of  the  counsel.  The  question  wholly  and 
solely  is  whether  the  declarations  of  the  President  can  be  given  in  evidence. 
"What  those  declarations  are,  in  my  judgment,  it  would  be  improper  to  state, 
and  unprofessional  to  state,  because  that  is  begging  the  whole  question  and 
attempting  to  get  them  before  the  Senate  and  the  country  by  the  recital  of  the 
counsel.  That  never  is  permitted.^  The  sole  question  is,  whatever  the  declara- 
tions are,  if  any  possible  declaration  can  be  competent  at  that  time.  If  the 
declaration  asked  for  can  be  competent,  you  may  assume  that  any  possible  con- 
versation can  be  competent,  and  then  we  will  assume  that  this 

Mr.  Stan'BERV.  Exactly;  then  you  come  to  the  point. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  this  can  be,  and  therefore  there  is  no  occasion 
to  state  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Stamberv.  Take  it  in  that  way,  any  possible  declaration  can  be  evidence. 
Do  you  propose  to  argue  this  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  do  not  want  to  argue  it. 

Mr.  Stambery.  We  do. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  the  Senate  will  vote  that  it  is  competent,  we  can- 
not alter  it  by  argument. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  and  Senators,  the  testimony  which  we 
expect  to  elicit  from  General  Sherman  I  look  upon  as  vital  upon  the  question 
of  intent,  as  testimony  we  are  entitled  to  have  upon  legal  grounds  perfectly  well 
settled  and  perfectly  unanswerable.  I  can  say  now  in  argument,  I  presume, 
what  I  expect  to  prove.  "  If,"  says  the  honorable  manager,  "  any  declarations 
you  choose  to  call  out  are  admissible,  you  may  make  them  as  strong  as  you 
please — imagine  any  that  you  please — and  still  no  declaration  of  the  President 
made  on  that  14th  of  January  can  be  admitted  here  !" 

Now,  first  of  all,  what  is  the  issue  here  ?  Let  the  managers  speak  for  them- 
selves. I  first  read  from  the  honorable  manager  who  opened  this  case,  at  page 
94  of  his  argument' 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  read  from  page  94  of  the  record,  not  of  the  argu- 
ment. 

Mr.  Stanbery.     The  manager  said  : 

Having  shown  that  the  Pre-i^iilent  wilfully  violated  an  act  of  Congress,  without  justifica- 
tion, both  in  the  removal  of  Stanton  and  the  ai3])ointment  of  Thomas,  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  wrongfully  the  possession  of  the  War  Othce  by  force,  if  need  be,  and  certainly  by 
threats  and  iutiuiidalious,  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  its  appropriations  through  its  ad 
ititirim  chief,  who  shall  say  that  Andrew  Johnson  is  not  guilty  of  the  high  crime  and  misde- 
meanors charged  against  him  in  the  tirst  eight  articles  ? 

Again,  on  page  190,  speaking  of  the  orders  of  removal : 

These  and  his  concurrent  acts  show  conclusively  that  his  attempt  to  get  the  control  of  the 
military  force  of  the  governinent,  by  the  seizing  of  the  DepartJiiciit  of  War,  was  done  in 
pursuance  of  his  general  design,  if  it  were  possible,  to  overthrow  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States ;  and  he  now  claims  by  his  answer  the  right  to  control  at  his  own  will,  for  the  execu- 
tion of  this  very  design,  every  othcer  of  the  army,  navy,  civil,  and  diplomatic  service  of  the 
United  States. 

Again,  on  page  99  : 

Failing  in  this  attempt  to  get  full  possession  of  the  office  through  the  Senate,  he  had  deter- 
mined, as  he  admits,  to  remove  Stanton  at  all  hazards,  and  endeavored  to  prevail  on  the 
General  to  aid  him  in  so  doing.  He  declines.  For  that  the  respondent  (juarrels  with  him, 
denounces  him  in  the  newspapers,  and  accuses  him  of  bad  faith  and  untruthfulness.  There- 
upon, asserting  his  prerogatives  as  Commander-in-chief,  he  creates  a  new  military  depart- 


464  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

ment  of  the  Atlantic.  He  attempts  to  bribe  Lieutenant  General  Sherman  to  take  command 
of  it  by  promotion  to  the  ranii  of  general  by  brevet,  trusting  that  his  military  services  would 
compel  the  Senate  to  coiitirm  him. 

If  the  respondent  can  get  a  general  by  brevet  appointed,  ho  can  then  by  simple  order  put 
him  on  duty  according  to  his  brevet  rank,  and  thus  have  a  general  of  the  army  in  command 
at  Washington,  tlirougli  whom  he  can  transmit  his  orders  and  comjily  with  the  act  which  he 
did  not  dare  transgress,  as  he  had  approved  it,  and  get  rid  of  the  hated  General  Grant  Sher- 
man spurned  the  biibe.  The  res[)ondent,  not  discouraged,  appointed  Major  General  George 
II.  Thomas  to  the  same  brevet  rank,  but  Thomas  declined. 

What  stimulated  the  order  of  the  President  just  at  that  time,  almost  three  years  after  the 
war  closed,  lint  just  after  the  Senate  had  reinstated  Stanton,  to  reward  military  servii-e  by 
the  appointment  of  generals  by  brevet?  Why  did  his  zeal  of  promotion  take  that  form  and 
ni>  other  /  There  were  many  other  meritorious  officers  of  lower  raid^  desirous  of  promotion. 
The  purpose  is  evident  to  every  thinking  mind.  He  had  determined  to  set  aside  Grant,  with 
■whom  he  had  quarrelled,  either  by  force  or  fraud,  either  in  conformity  with  or  in  spite  of  the 
act  of  Congress,  and  control  the  military  power  of  the  country.  On  the  *21st  of  February — 
for  all  these  events  cluster  nearly  about  the  same  point  of  time — he  appoints  Lorenzo  Thomas 
Secretary  of  War  and  orders  Stanton  out  of  the  oftice.  Stanton  refuses  to  go  ;  Thomas  is 
about  the  streets  declaring  that  he  will  put  him  out  by  force,  "kick  him  out." 

But,  still  more  closely  to  the  point,  we  will  come  to  the  testimony  of  intent, 
on  page  251.  This  is  upon  the  introduction  of  the  case  of  Mr.  Cooper.  To 
show  the  intent  of  the  President,  the  learned  managers  have  gone  back  to  the 
fall  of  1867,  and  begin  their  proof  with  an  intention  commenced  in  the  fall,  car- 
ried along,  says  the  honorable  manager,  to  the  very  date  of  the  21st  of  February, 
of  the  appointment  of  Thomas.  Most  of  the  proof,  he  says,  "clusters  about  that 
time,"  but  it  begins,  he  says,  in  the  fall;  and  he  calls  Chandler  to  prove  what? 
That  Cooper  was  inducted  into  office  by  the  President,  being  his  own  private 
secretary,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  what?  His  intention  to  get  his  own 
man  first  into  the  War  Office  to  control  the  requisitions  there,  and  then  to  get  his 
own  man  into  the  Treasury  Department  to  meet  those  requisitions  and  to  pay 
them,  and  thereby  control  the  purse  as  well  as  the  sword  of  the  nation. 

The  only  question — 

says  the  learned  manager —         '* 

is,  is  this  competent,  if  we  can  show  it  was  one  of  the  ways  and  means?  The  difficulty  that 
rests  in  the  minds  of  my  learned  friends  on  the  other  side  is  that  they  cluster  everything  about 
the  21st  of  February,  l>r68.  They  seem  to  forget  that  the  act  of  the  21st  of  February,  1868, 
was  only  the  culmination  of  a  purpose  formed  long  before,  as  in  the  President's  answer  he 
sets  forth,  to  wit:  as  early  as  the  J2th  of  August,  18(J7.  ##**## 

To  carry  it  out  there  are  various  things  to  do.  He  must  get  control  of  the  War  Office  ;  but 
what  good  does  that  do  if  he  cannot  get  somebody  who  shall  be  his  servant,  his  slave, 
dependent  on  his  breath,  to  answer  the  requisitions  of  his  pseudo  officer  whom  he  may  appoint; 
and  therefore  he  began  when  ?  Stanton  was  suspended,  and  as  early  as  the  12th  of  Decem- 
ber he  had  got  to  put  that  suspension  and  the  reasons  tor  it  before  the  Senate,  and  he  knew 
it  woidd  not  live  there  one  moment  after  it  got  fairly  considered.  Now  he  begins.  What  is 
the  lirst  thing  he  does  ?  "To  get  somebody  in  the  Treasury  Department  that  will  mind  me 
precisely  as  Thomas  will,  if  I  can  get  him  in  the  War  Department."  That  is  the  iirsl  thing; 
and  thereupon,  without  any  vacancy,  he  must  make  an  appointment.  The  difficulty  that  we 
find  is  that  we  are  obliged  to  argue  our  ease  step  by  step  upon  a  single  point  of  evidence. 
It  is  one  of  the  infelicities  always  of  putting  in  a  case  that  sharp,  keen,  ingenious  counsel 
can  insist  at  all  steps  on  impaling  you  upon  a  point  of  evidence;  and  therefore  I  have  got  to 
proeeed  a  little  further. 

Now,  our  evidence,  if  you  allow  it  to  come  in,  is,  first,  that  he  made  this  appointment; 
that  this  failing,  he  sent  it  to  the  Senate,  and  Cooper  was  rejected.  Still  determined  to  have 
Cooper  in,  he  appointed  him  ad  iiilerim,  precisely  as  this  ad  intirbn  Thomas  was  appointed, 
withoid  law  and  against  right.  We  ]mt  it  as  a  ])art  of  the  whule  machinery  by  whieh  to  get 
hold,  to  get,  if  he  could,  his  band  into  the  treasury  of  the  United  States,  although  Mr. 
Chandler  Las  just  stated  there  was  no  way  to  get  it  except  by  a  ri'ipiisilion  through  tlu^  War 
Department;  and  at  the  same  mciiieid,  to  show  that  this  was  j)art  of  the  same  illegal  means, 
we  show  yoti  that  although  Mr  McCulloeh,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  must  have  known 
that  Thomas  was  ai)pointi'd,  yet  the  President  took  jjains — we  have  put  in  the  paper — to  serve 
on  Mr.  McCulloeh  an  attested  coj)y  of  tht;  apiiointmeut  of  Thomas  ad  iiitcritii,  in  order  that 
he  and  Coojjcr  might  recognize  his  warrants. 

That  is  what  they  put  in.  U'hoy  have  got  that  testimony  for  that  purpose, 
as  they  say,  to  show  the  intent  of  ihe  I'resident,  begun,  they  say,  as  early  as 
the  I2th  of  August,  18G7,  progressed  in  by   the  appointment  of  Cooper  in  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  465 

fall  of  1867,  going  all  tlirougli  the  subsequent  time  until  it  "  culminated"  on  the 
21st  of  February  by  at  last  finding  the  proper  tool  to  do  this  work  in  the  War 
OtHce.  He  was  looking,  according  to  the  argument,  for  a  proper  tool — for  a 
servant — for  one  who  would  do  his  bidding,  and,  forsooth,  after  a  search,  he 
found  the  very  man  in  what  the  manager  has  called  "  a  disgraced  officer." 

Now,  Mr,  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  and  especially  those  of  you  who  are 
lawyers,  what  case  are  they  attempting  to  make  against  the  President  ?  Not 
simply  that  he  did  certain  acts  that  would  make  him  criminal,  but  that  he  did 
these  acts  mala  fide.,  with  an  unlawful  intent  and  criiDinal  purpose.  They  do 
not  prove  that  purpose,  or  attempt  to  prove  it,  by  any  positive  testimony;  but 
they  say,  "  Ave  prove  certain  facts  from  which  we  raise  a  presumption  that  that 
was  the  purpose."  It  is  upon  proof  founded  on  presumption,  and  such  proof 
is  admissible,  that  the  gentlemen  rest  the  essential  part  of  their  case  ;  that  is  to 
say,  the  criminal  intent.  They  prove  certain  acts  that  may  be  criminal  or 
stand  indifferent,  according  to  the  intent  of  the  party.  Then  they  prove  certain 
other  acts  and  declarations  which,  as  they  say,  raise  the  presumption  that  the 
thing  done,  the  order  given,  the  appointment  made,  was  made  with  that  criminal 
intent  laid,  and  they  say,  "  we  not  only  show  that  criminal  intent  then,  but," 
they  say,  "  it  was  conceived  months  before,"  and  that  all  the  machinery  was 
put  in  motion,  and  that  the  President,  from  the  12th  of  August,  1867,  was  pur- 
suing that  intent,  looking  for  tools,  agents  to  carry  out  that  intent,  and  it  did 
not  culminate  until  the  21st  of  February,  1868,  although  the  gentleman  says 
most  of  the  facts  happened  to  cluster  about  that  period,  but  not  all  of  them. 

This  being  so,  senators,  what  is  the  rule  to  rebut  this  presumption  of  intention  ] 
"When  a  prosecution  is  allowed  to  raise  the  presumption  of  guilt  from  the  intent 
of  the  accused,  by  proving  circumstances  which  raised  that  presumption  against 
him,  may  he  not  rebut  it  by  proof  of  other  circumstances  which  show  that  he 
could  not  have  had  such  a  criminal  intent  ?  Was  anything  ever  plainer  than 
that? 

Why,  consider  what  a  latitude  one  charged  with  crime  is  allowed  under  such 
circumstances.  Take  the  case  of  a  man  charged  with  passing  counterfeit  money. 
You  must  prove  his  intent;  you  must  prove  his  scienter ;  you  must  prove  cir- 
cumstances from  which  a  presumption  arises.  Did  he  know  the  bill  was  coun- 
terfeit ?  You  may  prove  that  he  had  been  told  so  ;  prove  that  he  had  seen  other 
money  of  the  same  kind,  and  raise  the  intent  in  that  way.  Even  when  you 
make  such  proof  against  him  arising  from  presumptions,  how  may  he  rebut  that 
presumption  of  intent  from  circumstances  proved  against  him?  In  the  first 
place,  by  the  most  general  of  all  presumptions,  proof  of  good  character  generally. 
That  he  is  allowed  to  do  to  rebut  a  presumption — the  most  general  of  all  pre- 
sumptions— not  that  he  did  what  was  right  in  that  transaction,  not  that  he  did 
certain  things  or  made  certain  declarations  about  the  same  time  which  explained 
that  the  intent  was  honest,  but  going  beyond  that  through  the  whole  field  of  pre- 
sumptions, for  it  is  all  open  to  him,  he  may  rebut  the  presumption  arising  from 
proof  of  express  facts  by  the  proof  of  general  good  character,  raising  the  pre- 
sumption that  he  is  not  a  man  who  would  have  such  an  intent. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  We  do  not  object  to  that  proof. 

jMr.  Stanbery,  You  do  not ! 

Mr.  ^Manager  Butler,  Put  in  his  good  character. 

;Mr.  Stanb^rv.  Such  a  general  thing  as  that!     And  yet  you  object  to  this? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Put  in  his  good  character,  and  we  will  take  issue  on 
that. 

Mr.  Stanbkrv.  Now,  what  evidence  is  a  defendant  entitled  to  who  is 
charged  with  crime  where  it  is  necessary  to  make  out  an  intent  against  him 
where  the  intent  is  not  positively  proved  by  his  own  declarations,  but  where  the 
intent  is  to  be  gathered  by  proof  of  other  facts,  which  may  be  guilty  or  indiffer- 
ent according  to  the  intent  ]  What  proof  is  allowed  against  him  to  raise  this 
30  I  p 


466  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

preanraption  of  intent  ?  Proof  of  those  facts  from  whicli  the  mind  itself  infers 
a  guilty  intention.  But  while  the  prosecution  may  make  such  a  case  against 
him  by  such  testimony,  may  he  not  rebut  the  case  by  exactly  the  same  sort  of 
testimony  ?  If  it  is  a  declaration  that  they  rely  upon  as  made  by  him  at 
one  time,  may  he  not  meet  it  by  declarations  made  about  the  same  time  with 
regard'  to  the  same  transaction  ?  Undoubtedly.  They  cannot  be  too  remote ;  I 
admit  that ;  but  if  they  are  about  the  time,  if  they  are  connected  with  the 
transaction,  if  they  do  not  appear  to  have  been  manufactured,  then  the  declara- 
tions of  the  defendant  from  which  the  inference  of  innocence  would  be  presumed 
are,  under  reasonable  limitations,  just  as  admissible  as  the  declarations  of  the 
defendant  from  which  the  prosecution  has  attempted  to  deduce  the  inference  of 
criminal  purpose.  I»Jow  let  us  look  at  the  authorities  on  this  point.  In  the 
trial  of  Hardy,  reported  in  Stat6  Trials,  volume  twenty-four,  page  1066,  Mr. 
Erskine,  who  defended  Hardy,  called  a  Mr.  Daniel  Stuart  as  a  witness.  The 
case  is  so  fully  in  point  that  I  will  read  from  it  pretty  largely  : 

Mr.  Erskine.  I  call  back  this  gentleman  only  for  the  purpose  of  asking  him  one  ques- 
tion, which  I  could  not  with  propriety  ask  him  before ;  you  stated,  in  your  former  examina- 
tion, your  personal  acquaintance  with  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  and  your  transactions  with  him 
before;  did  you  ever  hear  him  state  what  his  plan  of  reform  was? 

Yes,  I  have ;  he  always  stated  it  to  be  the  Duke  of  Eichmond's  plan — universal  suffrage 
and  anniuxl  Parliauients. 

Was  that  said  to  you  publicly,  or  in  the  privacy  of  confidence  ? 

It  was  said  publicly.     And  he  sold  me  some  co|)ies  of  the  Duke  of  Richmond's  letter. 

Mr.  Attorney  Genekral.  I  really  must  obji'ct  to  this  sort  of  examination. 

Mr.  Erskine.  Then  I  will  not  defend  this  question.  I  am  persuaded  your  lordships 
will  not  refuse  to  the  unfortunate  man  at  the  bar  that  evidence  which  has  been  received  for 
every  prisoner,  under  similar  circumstances,  from  the  earliest  times  of  our  history  to  the 
present  moment.  I  am  sorry  to  consuuie  the  time  of  the  court,  but  if  I  am  called  upon  I 
will  repeat  to  your  lordships,  verbatim,  from  the  Statt^  Trials,  various  questions,  upon  similar 
occasions,  ]iut  by  different  prisoners,  by  consent  of  all  the  judges,  all  the  attorney  generals, 
and  solicitor  generals,  and  counsel  for  the  Crown.  I  only  wish  to  know  whether  the  question 
is  objected  to  or  not. 

Mr.  A  I'TORNEY  General.  It  is. 

Mr.  Erskine.  I  will  proceed,  and  I  have  much  more  pleasure  in  doing  it  from  the 
manner  in  wliich  the  attorncj-  general  conducted  himself  rccentl}',  because  the  moment  it  was 
stated  as  a  proceeding  which,  we  thouglit,  might  be  serviceable  to  the  prisoner,  ami  consist- 
ent with  the  rules  uf  Civideiice,  lie  instantly  acceded  to  its  production;  therefore,  independent 
of  satisfying  your  lordships,  if  I  can  satisfy  my  learned  friend  that  we  are  in  the  regular 
course,  I  am  persuaded  he  would  be  sorry  himself  that  this  prisouer  should  be  deprived  of 
the  advantage  all  others  have  enjoyed. 

Then  this  great  advocate  proceeds  to  give  the  cases  from  the  State  Trials 
upon  the  point  that  I  am  now  considering — the  declarations  of  a  prisoner  as  evi- 
dence of  his  intent,  Avhether  it  were  unlawful  or  lawful,  in  the  matter  as  to  which 
he  is  charged. 

I  read  from  page  IOCS  : 

Now,  wliat  is  the  present  case  ?  The  prisoner  is  charged  with  the  overt  acts,  which  I  need 
not  repeat,  because  we  are  so  well  acquainted  with  the  nature  of  them. 

We  are  charged  with  overt  acts  in  issuing  this  order. 

But  he  is  not  charged  with  tlio  commission  of  tliose  acts  as  substantive  acts,  but  he  is 
charged  with  having  in  his  mind  the  wicked  and  detestable  |iurpose  of  aiming  at  the  destruc- 
tion of  tlie  king,  to  put  down  and  bring  the  king  to  dcatli,  and  that  in  the  fullilmeut  of  that 
most  detestable  iuutgination  he  did  the  specihc  acts  cliurged  upon  the  record. 

As  we  are  charged  here  with  intent,  not  to  put  down  the  king,  but  to  put  down 
Congress,  and  our  detestable  acts  are  to  put  a  tool  in  the  War  Department  to 
control  the  requisitions,  and  another  tool  in  the  Treasury  Department  to  get 
hold  of  the  money. 

Mr.  Erskine  continues  : 

That  is  to  say,  that  lie  agreed  to  assemble  a  convention  to  be  held  which  was  not  held — 
that  he  conspired  to  hold  it,  for  the  purpose  of  subverting  the  rule  and  authority  of  tho 
country,  and  not  that  ulouo,  but  that  he  consented  to  hold  such  convention,  wliicli  conven- 
tion, in  his  mind,  was  to  accomplish  tlie  purpose  of  the  subversion  of  the  government,  and 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  467 

that  be  did  aijree  to  assemble  that  convention  for  the  purpose  of  that  subversion  in  fulfil- 
meut,  uot  that  the  other  is  the  cousequguco  of  it,  but  iu  fnitiiniout  of  the  detestable  purpose 
of  compassing  the  king's  death. 

Here,  then,  the  intention  of  the  mind  is  the  question  which  the  jury  have  to  try;  and  I 
think  I  may  appeal  to  what  passed  in  the  court  on  Saturday,  that  I  did  not  seek  to  lay 
down  other  rules  of  evidence  than  those  that  have  been  most  recently  stated,  and  those  that 
have  been  determined  in  ancient  times. 

Now  be  comes  to  the  cases  : 

The  counsel  for  Lord  George  Gordon  were  the  present  Lord  Keuyon,  lord  chief  justice  of 
the  King's  l»ench,  ajid  myself,  who  have  now  the  honor  to  speak  to  the  court ;  and  I  was  per- 
mitted to  ask  the  Rev.  Erasmus  Middletou  (the  tirst  witness,  and,  therefore,  his  examination 
fell  to  me  as  junior  in  the  case)  these  questions — I  should  tell  your  lordships,  to  make  it  more 
intelligible,  that  the  great  object  was  to  see  what  intention  Lord  George  Gordon  hail,  which 
could  be  collected  only  from  what  passed  before — "Did  you,  at  any  of  these  numerous  meet- 
ings of  this  Protestant  Association,  which  you  attended  from  the  tin.e  Lord  George  Gordon 
became  president  of  that  society,"  (which  was  two  years  before^)  "  till  the  2t3th  of  May" — 

That  was  the  "  culmination  "  of  Lord  George  Gordon's  conduct : 

— "  till  the  29th  of  May ;  did  you  ever  hear  Lord  George  Gordon,  in  his  public  speeches  in 
that  association,  make  use  of  any  expressions  which  showed  any  disloyal  or  unconstitutional 
intentions  in  him  /" 

"  Not  in  the  least,"  says  the  witness  ;  "  the  very  reverse."  Now,  continues 
Erskine : 

Now,  compare  this  with  the  question  lam  going  to  ask ;  a  cunning,  artful  man  might  stand 
up  in  a  Protestant  association,  and  hold  forth  great  professions  when  he  meant  the  contrary  ; 
but  no  man,  who  reposes  confidence  in  the  bosom  of  a  friend,  building  himself  upon  the 
honor  and  honesty  of  his  friend,  when  he  tells  him  what  his  object  is,  will  deceive  him. 
Good  God !  if  I  were  to  ask  people,  did  not  Mr.  Hard}-,  in  the  Corresponding  Society,  say 
that  the  Duke  of  Richmond's  plan  was  his  object,  he  might  say  it  there,  for  the  purpose  of 
its  afterwards  being  given  in  evidence,  that  he  had  publicly  avowed  that ;  if  that  may  be 
asked,  how  is  it  possible  to  oppose  the  other?  The  examination  then  goes  on  :  "Did  all  his 
speeches,  delivered  as  president,  meet  with  your  approbation ;  and  did  it  appear  to  you  that 
his  views  were  the  same  as  those  of  the  whole  associated  body?"  "  Quite  so."  "  Did  you 
ever  hear  Lord  George  Gordon  make  use  of  any  expressions  as  if  he  meant  to  repeal  this  bill 
by  force  of  arms?"     "Not  iu  the  least."     "  Were  the  meetings  open?"  and  so  on. 

Again  : 

The  next  case  I  shall  state  is  that  of  my  Lord  Russell,  who  was  indicted  for  compassing 
the  king's  death,  and  the  overt  act  was  consulting  to  raise  rebellion  and  to  seize  the  king's 
guards.  In  his  defence  he  called  many  persons  of  quality  to  speak  to  his  atfection  toward 
the  government,  and  his  detestation  of  risings  against  it — I  will  pause  here  a  minute.  Why, 
a  man  might  have  a  great  deal  of  affection  to  the  government  in  the  year  ]78U  and  might 
change  upon  the  subject,  but  yet  the  criminal  law  of  England  looks  out  industriously  to  see 
how  it  can  interfere  iu  favor  of  liberty  and  life,  not  trjmg  how  it  can  shut  out  the  light,  but 
liow  it  can  let  it  shine  in  ;  even  that  question,  which  I  do  not  think  one  of  the  strictest,  was 
suffered  to  be  let  in,  because  Dr.  Burnet  had  had  a  long  acquaintance  with  Lord  Russell,  and 
Lord  Russell  might  not  have  conceived  the  purpose  of  rebellion  till  a  short  time  before  ;  but 
I  shall  ask  as  to  the  time  when  they  say  this  man's  mind  was  full  of  this  conspiracy — 

As  we  do  here — the  time  of  this  intent ;  no  other  time — 

but  I  shall  ask,  as  to  the  time  when  they  say  this  man's  mind  was  so  full  of  conspiracy,  so 
horrible  in  its  nature,  what  were  the  sentiments  which  he  was  pouring  into  the  bosom  of  his 
friend  as  the  object  of  all  these  societies  ? 

"Doctor  Burnet,"  (says  Lord  Russell,)  "if  you  please  to  give  some  account  of  my  con- 
versation ?"  Doctor  Burnet  says:  "  I  have  had  the  honor-  to  be  known  to  my  Lord  Russell 
several  years,  and  he  hath  declared  himself  with  much  confidence  to  me,  and  he  always, 
upon  all  occasions,  expressed  himself  against  all  risings."  Now  this  is  not  character  to  say 
that  Lord  Russell  was  a  quiet,  peaceable  man  ;  no,  this  is  evidence  of  conversation  ;  my  Lord 
Russell  declared  it  so ;  therefore  it  is  not  that  you  are  to  raise  a  probability  upon  the  subject 
by  the  general  nature  of  a  man's  character,  or  what  you  think  of  him ;  but  it  shall  be  allowed  to 
witnesses  to  say  what  the  person  trying  has  expressed,  because  it  raises  an  intrinsic  improba- 
bility of  his  being  guilty  of  the  crime  imputed  to  him.  Doctor  Burnet  says  :  "  He  always 
expressed  himself  against  all  risings  ;  and  when  he  spoke  of  some  people  that  would  provoke 
to  it,  he  expressed  himself  so  determined  against  that  matter  I  think  no  man  could  do  more." 

Now,  what  we  expect  to  prove  is,  that,  so  far  from  there  being  any  ititent  on 
-the  part  of  the  President  to  select  a  tool  to  take  possession  of  the  War  Office, 
he  asked  first  the  General  of  the  army,  Grant,  and  when  he  failed  hjm,  who 
next?    The  next  most  honored  soldier  that  we  have,  Sherman.    He  was  a  tool! 


468  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

It  was  the  President's  purpose,  they  say,  to  put  a  tool  there  !  That  was  his 
intent,  to  find  a  man  who  could  take  a  bribe,  by  brevet  perhaps,  and,  having 
found  such  a  man  as  that,  put  him  there !  They  say  he  did  find  such  a  man  in 
Thomas,  "  a  disgraced  officer."  Well,  if  that  was  his  intent  in  the  fall ;  if  with 
that  intent  he  put  Cooper  in  the  Treasury,  it  must  have  been  with  that  intent 
he  would  put  Sherman  in  the  War  Ofiice.  Before  he  thought  of  Thomas  at  all, 
before  he  thought  of  any  subordinate,  he  took  one  of  the  most  honored  officers 
of  the  land,  and  said  to  him  :  "  Come  now,  take  this  office ;  you  are  fit  to  be 
my  tool — take  this  office,  not  to  carry  it  on  as  you  carried  on  this  great  war, 
not  to  remain  a  trusted  and  honorable  man,  but  to  become  my  subordinate  and 
my  tool!"  Will  the  gentleman  say  that  the  President  at  that  time  had  an 
intent  to  seize  upon  the  requisitions  of  that  department,  to  get  a  man  there  who 
would  send  an  improper  requisition  over  to  the  Treasury,  as  he  got  a  man  in  the 
Treasury,  as  they  say,  to  honor  an  improper  requisiti(m — that  the  President 
had  put  him  there  to  drive  Congress  out  of  these  halls,  and  that  he  intended  to 
put  Sherman  there  to  become  his  tool  1  Would  the  gentleman  dare  to  say  that? 
Would  the  President,  in  the  first  place,  have  dared  to  make  such  a  proposition 
to  such  a  man  as  General  Sherman  ? 

Gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  if  you  are  to  raise  a  presumption  that  the  President 
intended  to  carry  out  an  unlawful  purpose  by  appointing  Cooper,  that  he  intended 
to  carry  out  the  same  unlawful  purpose  by  appointing  Thomas,  how  does  it 
happen  that  you  do  not  give  him  the  benefit  of  the  presumption  arising  from  his 
attempt  to  get  such  a  man  as  General  Sherman,  that  could  not  be  made  a  tool 
of?     And  yet  this  is  all  to  be  shut  out  from  the  defence  of  the  President ! 

In  the  cases  that  I  have  put.  the  case,  for  instance,  of  Lord  George  Gordon, 
who  was  indicted  for  a  treasonable  speech  made  on  a  certain  day — 1  forget  the 
date — before  a  certain  association,  he  was  allowed  to  go  into  proof  running 
through  a  period  of  two  years  before  that  in  meetings  of  that  same  association, 
that,  instead  of  encouraging  risings  or  insurrections,  he  had  set  his  face  against 
them.  All  that  was  admitted,  although  it  was  begun  two  years  prior  to  the 
declaration  for  which  he  was  indicted,  and,  indeed,  more  than  two  years  before, 
certainly  not  clustering  about  the  same  lime,  not  during  the  time  when  they  say 
the  intent  arose,  but  long  prior  to  that  time,  when,  in  fiict,  his  intent  may  have 
been  honest ;  for  in  two  years  a  man  may  change  his  intent.  They  might  have 
said  at  that  time,  "  You  have  gone  too  far  back ;  the  question  is  as  to  your 
intent  at  the  time  of  the  transaction  ;  as  to  your  intent  of  the  time  when  we 
have  given  evidence  against  you."  Lord  George  Gordon  went  back  two  years 
behind  that.  We  stop  within  the  time  which  they  have  fixed  themselves.  We 
do  not  ask  to  give  any  testimony  as  to  the  President's  intent  before  the  acts 
which  they  have  brought  forward  to  raise  a  presumption  of  guilt  against  him. 

They  began  in  the  fall  of  1&G7  with  the  appointment  of  Cooper,  as  the}'  say. 
Tliis  is  in  the  subsequent  winter,  when  Sherman  is  here,  right  in  the  middle  of 
this  transaction.  The  President,  as  they  say,  had  this  intent  all  along  before 
the  act  had  culminated ;  that  is,  had  ended,  had  reached  its  consummation — all 
that  time,  they  say,  the  bad  intent  was  in  the  President's  mind,  and  they  use 
every  circumstance  they  can  against  him  to  raise  the  presumption  that  he 
intended  to  carry  it  out.  Now,  we  Avant  to  show  his  acts  and  his  declarations 
during  that  time  to  dissipate  this  idea  that  the  I'resident  had  any  unlawful 
intent,  to  show  that  he  was  not  seeking  after  n  tool,  but  seeking  for  an  honest, 
honorable,  high-minded  soldier — to  do  what?  That  which  was  unlawful? 
No;  but  to  do  that  which  th(!  I'resident  thought  belonged  to  him.  We  will 
show  you  that  he  asked  General  Sherman  if  he  would  take  that  ofiice  U[)on  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  and  then  said  to  (Jeiieral  Sherman 

Mr.  Manager  Bii'ii,kk.  That  is  not  allowable. 
^    Mr.  Stanhkrv.  AVhat  !   that  1  cannot  slate  what  we  are  going  to  prove?     I 
insist  on  it  as  a  right. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  469 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  insist  that  it  is  never  done  in  any  court. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  If  the  Senate  choose  to  stop  me  I  will  stop  ;  but  I  hope  I 
shall  be  allowed  to  state  what  I  expect  to  prove.  I  have  been  too  loug  at  the 
bar  not  to  know  that  I  have  that  right.  The  gentleman  may  answer  my  argu- 
ment, but  I  hope  he  will  not  stop  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  you  look  at  the  book  you  hold  in  your  hand  you 
will  fold  that  Erskine  stopped  the  attorney  general  in  precisely  the  same  case 
from  which  you  have  quoted,  and  said,  "  You  must  not  read  a  letter." 

Mr.  Stanbery.  "Must  not  read  a  letter!"  I  am  not  reading  a  letter ;  I 
am  stating  what  I  expect  to  prove,  and  the  gentleman  takes  me  up.  He  does 
not  understand  where  he  is  or  where  I  am.  He  puts  an  intent  into  my  mind 
that  I  have  not  got,  as  he  seems  to  have  the  very  good  faculty  of  putting 
intents  into  every  man's  mind.  We  expect  to  show  that  the  President  not 
only  asked  General  Sherman  to  take  this  position,  but  told  him  then  distinctly 
what  his  purpose  was,  and  that  was  to  put  that  office  in  such  a  situation  as  to 
drive  Mr.  Stanton  into  the  courts  of  law, 

J[r.  Manager  Butler.  This  is  wholly  unprofessional  and  improper. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  will  judge  of  that.  Erskine  in  this  argument  introduces  a 
great  many  cases,  which  it  would  take  too  long  to  i-ead;  but  finally  the  question 
which  he  put  was  allowed  to  be  put  and  was  answered,  and  I  understand  the 
decision  in  Hardy's  case  has  gone  into  the  text-books  as  law.  But  it  was  not 
necessary  to  have  Hardy's  case.  I  will  ask  any  lawyer  who  has  ever  tried  a 
case  where  the  question  was  the  intention,  and  where  the  case  made  against  his 
client  was  of  facts  from  which  a  presumption  of  intention  was  pretended  to  be 
raised  by  the  prosecution,  may  he  not  show  contemporaneous  acts,  acts  cover- 
ing the  same  time  as  those  used  against  him,  declarations  within  the  same  time 
with  those  used  against  him ;  may  he  not  be  allowed  to  resort  to  these  to  rebut 
the  criminal  intention,  and  to  show  tnat  his  intention  was  fair,  honest,  and  legal  ? 
Undoubtedly  such  is  the  law,  and  it  is  upon  this  ground  that  we  ask  the  intro- 
duction of  the  testimony  of  General  Sherman. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  senators,  I  was  quite  willing  to  put 
this  case  to  the  judgment  of  both  lawyers  and  laymen  of  the  Senate  without  a 
word  of  argument ;  and  I  only  speak  now  to  "  the  lawyers,"  because  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  President  emphasizes  that  word  as  though  he  expected  some 
peculiar  advantage  from  speaking  to  the  lawyers  of  the  Senate.  All  the  rules 
of  evidence  are  founded  upon  the  good  sense  of  mankind,  as  experience  in  the 
courts  of  law  has  shown  what  is  most  likely  or  unlikely  to  elicit  truth,  and  they 
address  themselves  just  as  well  to  the  layman  as  they  do  to  the  lawyer.  There 
is  no  gentleman  in  the  Senate,  nay,  there  is  no  gentleman  anywhere,  that  can- 
not understand  this  question  of  evidence;  and  if  the  plain  rules  of  fair  judg- 
ment and  fair  examination  are  applied  to  it,  as  I  doubt  not  they  will  be,  there 
can  be  no  difficulty  in  the  matter. 

I  agree  that  I  labor,  not  under  any  weight  of  the  argument  that  has  just  been 
put  forward  against  me,  but  labor  under  the  weight  of  the  opinion  of  the  pre- 
siding officer,  who,  deciding  without  argument,  has  told  the  Senate  that  in  his 
opinion  this  came  within  the  previous  ruling,  which  I  supposfe  to  be  the  ruling 
of  yesterday.  If  it  did  I  should  not  for  a  moment  have  troubled  the  Senate, 
because  I  have  long  since  leai"ned,  however  they  may  be  against  me,  to  bow  to 
the  decisions  of  the  tribunal  before  which  I  am. 

But  this  is  entirely  another  and  a  different  case.  In  order  to  understand  it  let 
us  see  what  is  the  exact  question.  The  exact  question  is,  "  In  that  interview," 
to  wit,  on  the  14th  of  January,  "  what  conversations  took  place  between  the 
President  and  you  in  regard  to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  V  "  What  conver- 
sation;" it  does  not  ask  for  acts  now;  pray,  gentlemen,  keep  the  distinction. 

"  What  conversation  took  place  between  you  ?"  is  the  question,  and  upon 
that  the  Senate  will  vote. 


470  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Now,  how  is  this  attempted  to  be  supported  1  I  agree  that  the  first  part  of 
the  argument  made  by  the  learned  Attorney  General  was  the  very  best  one  he 
ever  made  in  his  life,  because  it  consisted  mostly  in  reading  what  I  had  said. 
[Laughter.]  He  put  the  question,  and  I  have  a  right  to  say  ?o,  I  trust,  without 
any  immodesty,  because  he  adopted  all  I  said  as  his  own,  which  is  one  of  the 
highest  compliments  1  ever  had  paid  to  me.  I  thought  it  was  a  good  argument, 
senators,  Avhen  I  made  it  to  you;  I  hoped  it  would  convince  yon  that  it  was 
right;  but  it  foiled.  If  it  can  be  any  better  now  in  the  mouth  of  the  Attorney 
General  1  desire  to  see  the  result.  I  was  arguing  about  putting  in  the  Presi- 
dent's act  in  appointing  Mr.  Cooper.  I  tried  in  every  way  I  could  to  get  it 
before  you ;  I  tried  to  show  you  that  you  ought  to  permit  me  to  do  so  ;  but  by 
an  almost  solid  vote  you  said  I  should  not.  I  said,  "  I  can  prove  the  intent." 
My  argument  failed  to  convince  you.  Will  it  do  any  better  when  read  by  the 
musical  voice  of  my  friend  from  Oliio  1  I  think  not.  Of  course  you  will  allow 
nie  to  have  so  much  sclf-gratnlation  as  still  to  say  that  I  think  it  ought  to  have 
convinced  you.     I  only  bow  to  the  fact  that  it  did  not. 

But  the  point  was  there  that  I  was  attempting  to  prove,  not  a  declaration  of 
Mr.  Johnson,  but  his  act  in  putting  in  Cooper ;  here  they  ask  for  conversations. 
We  failed ;  the  Senate  decided  that  we  could  not  put  in  any  act  except  such  as 
was  charged  in  the  articles.  We  do  not  charge  in  the  articles  an  attempt  to 
bribe,  or  use  as  a  tool,  the  gentleman  who  is  on  the  stand,  for  whom  we  all  have 
so  high  a  respect.  1  do  not  think  that  we  have  that  appreciation  of  him. 
Whatever  appreciation  the  President  might  have,  we  never  had  that.  What 
do  we  charge  ?  We  charge  that  he  used  the  man  whom  we  saw  on  the  stand 
here  before  as  a  tool,  and  judge  ye  on  your  consciences  whether  he  is  not  on 
his  appearance  here  a  fit  instrument.  Judge  ye!  Judge  ye!  You  have  seen 
him — a  weak,  vacillating,  vain  old  man,  just  fit  to  be  pampered  by  a  little  pride 
to  do  things  which  no  man  and  no  patriot  would  dare  do.  Why,  let  me  call 
your  attention  for  a  moment  to  him.  On  this  stand  here  yesterday  he  was 
going  on  to  say  that  his  conversation  was  playful  to  Karsner,  playful  to  Wil- 
keson  ;  but  when  he  saw  that  that  was  not  so,  that  that  did  not  put  him  in  a 
dignified  position,  he  swung  back  to  the  truth,  and  told  us  he  meiint  to  have 
force  to  the  shedding  of  blood. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  lie  said  exactly  the  contrary. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  do  not  understand  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  lie  said  exactly  the  contrary. 

Mr.  Manager  Buti.kr.  lie  said  that  he  had  made  up  his  mind  to  use  force  to 
the  shedding  of  blood. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  No;  to  break  a  door;  but  when  he  thought  of  shedding  blood 
he  retracted  his  opinion. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  And  he  remained  of  that  mind  until  the  next  morning. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  No;   he  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  What  he  found  at  the  masquerade  ball  or  elsewhere 
to  change  his  mind  he  has  not  told  us  ;  nor  can  he  tell  us  when  he  changed  his 
mind.  Am  I  not  riglit  ?  But  I  j)ass  from  that ;  I  am  only  calling  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Senate  to  the  distinction  between  the  two. 

Now,  then,  how  is  this  attempted  to  be  supported?  The  learned  gentleman 
from  Ohio  says  what?  He  says  "  in  a  counterfeiter's  case  we  have  to  |)rove  the 
scitntcr."  Yes,  true  ;  and  how  ?  By  showing  the  passage  of  other  counterfeit 
bills  ?  Yes ;  but,  gentlemen,  did  you  ever  hear,  in  a  case  of  counterfcithig,  the 
counterfeiter  prove  that  he  did  not  know  the  bill  was  bad  by  proviiig  that  at 
some  other  time  he  passed  a  good  bill  ]  I.s  not  that  the  proposition  ?  We  try 
the  counterfeit  bill,  which  we  have  nailed  to  the  counter,  of  the  21st  of  Bebru- 
ary  ;  and,  in  order  to  prove  that  he  did  not  issue  it,  he  wants  to  show  that  he 
passed  a  good  bill  on  tlie  14th  of  January.  It  does  not  take  a  lawyer  to  under- 
stand that.     That  is  the  proposition. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  471 

We  prove  that  a  counterfeiter  passed  a  bad  bill  :  I  am  following  the  illustra- 
tion of  my  learned  opponent.  Having  proved  that  he  passed  a  bad  bill,  what 
is  the  evidence  he  proposes  ]  That  at  some  other  time  he  told  somebody  else, 
a  good  man,  that  he  would  not  pass  bad  money,  to  give  it  the  strongest  form  ; 
and  you  are  asked  to  vote  it  on  that  reason.  1  take  the  illustration.  Is  there 
any  authority  brought  for  that  ?     No. 

What  is  the  next  ground  ?  The  next  is  that  it  is  in  order  to  show  Andrew- 
Johnson's  good  character.  If  they  will  put  that  in  testimony  I  will  open  the 
door  widely.  We  shall  have  no  objection  whenever  they  offer  that.  I  will 
take  all  that  is  said  of  him  by  all  good  and  loyal  men,  whether  for  probity, 
patriotism  or  any  other  matter  that  they  choose  to  put  in  issue.  But  how  do 
they  propose  to  prove  good  character  ?  By  showing  what  he  said  to  a  gentle- 
man. Did  you  ever  hear  of  good  character,  lawyers  of  the  Senate;  laymen  of 
the  Senate,  did  you  ever  hear  a  good  character  proved  in  that  wayl  A  man'a 
character  is  in  issue.  Does  he  call  up  one  of  his  neighbors  and  ask  what  the 
man  told  him  about  his  character  ?  No ;  the  general  speech  of  people  in  the 
community,  what  was  publicly  known  and  said  of  him,  is  the  point,  and  upon 
that  went  Hardy's  case. 

Now,  then,  lawyers  of  the  Senate,  I  have  never  seen  before  cited  in  the  course 
of  an  argument  on  the  law  the  speeches  of  counsel.  I  thought  it  was  not 
within  the  common  usage  of  the  profession.  Am  1  not  right,  lawyers  of  the 
Senate  ;  and  yet  page  after  page  of  the  argument  of  Mr.  Erskine,  who  was  going 
forward  in  every  way  that  he  could  to  save  the  life  of  his  client,  has  been  cited 
here  to  the  Senate  to  govern  them  as  a  precedent.  A  more  unprofessional  act  I 
never  knew. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  must  ask  the  gentleman  to  cease  these 
statements  of  "unprofessional"  matter.  I  read---I  wish  the  gentleman  to 
attend  to  what  I  say  now — I-  read  only  so  much  of  the  argument  of  Ersk- 
ine as  showed  the  application  of  the  cases  which  I  read  from  Erskine's  speech. 
That  was  all. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  attended  with  care  to  what  was  said  ;  I  had  the  , 
book  in  my  hand  and  followed  the  gentleman  ;  the  argument  of  the  counsel 
only  was  read ;  and  now,  to  show  the  application  of  that  particular  case,  let  me 
ask  what  the  question  there  was.  The  question  was,  what  were  the  public 
declarations  of  Mr.  Hardy  ?  He  was  accused  of  having  made  a  speech  and 
made  a  series  of  speeches  which  were  held  to  be  treasonable.  Then  the  ques- 
tion was,  what  was  his  character  as  a  loyal  man,  and  upon  that  the  discussion 
arose  from  which  citations  have  been  made ;  and  when  the  discussion  finally 
terminated,  gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  what  was  the  question  1  ^  I  read  from  page 
1096  of  the  twenty-fourth  volume  of  the  State  Trials  : 

Did  you  before  the  time  of  this  convention  being  held,  which  is  imputed  to  Mr.  Hardy, 
e-\jer  hear  from  him  what  his  objects  were— whether  he  has  at  all  mixed  himself  in  that 
business  ? 

I  have  very  often  conversed  with  him,  as  I  mentioned  before,  about  his  plan  of  reform  ; 
he  always  adhered  to  the  Duke  of  Eichinoud's  plan,  and  said  that  will  be  the  plan  that  will 
be  adopted  in  the  end.  I  disagreed  with  him  about  that,  and  that  occasioned  it  more  par- 
ticularly to  be  marked  in  myiuemory;  we  disi)uted  about  it,  and  he  always  ob.stinately 
adhered  to  it,  and  stated  that  to  be  the  object  of  tlie  society,  and  his  whole  object. 

Was  this  said  in  the  confidence  of  private  regard  or  in  public  company,  where  it  might  be 
said  ostentatiously  ? 

I  was  never  in  public  company  with  him  ;  he  and  another  person  were  with  me  one  night, 
and  I  have  had  long  and  frequent  conversations  with  him  upon  the  subject. 

From  all  that  you  have  seen  of  him,  what  is  his  character  for  sinceritiy  and  truth? 

I  have  every  n-ason  to  believe  him  to  be  a  very  sincere,  .simi^le,  hnucst  man. 

Mr.  Attorney  Gourdl.  If  this  had  been  stated  at  first  to  be  the  question  meant  to  be 
askech  I  do  not  see  what  possible  objection  I  could  have  to  it. 

And  if  they  will  ask  General  Sherman  or  anybody  else  what  is  Andrew  John- 
son's character  for  sincerity  and  truth  I  will  not  object,  I  assure  you.  That 
was  the  whole  question  ahout  which  the  dispute  arose  in  Hardy's  case ;  and 


472  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  Attorney  General  finally  said  "  if  I  had  known  that  was  what  you  are  after 
I  never  should  have  objected." 

What  was  Lord  George  Gordon's  case  1  This  is  an  illustration  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  reading  from  the  arguments  of  counsel,  whether  they  are  made  here  by 
me  or  made  by  Lord  Erskine  in  regard  to  Gordon's  trial.  We  are  on  one  side 
when  we  are  arguing  our  cause,  and  we  are  apt  to  get  our  minds  somewhat 
biased.  What  was  Lord  George  Gordon's  case  ?  Lord  George  Gordon  was 
accused  of  treason  in  leadiug  a  mob  of  Protestants  against  the  House  of  Parlia- 
ment ;  and  there,  in  order  to  show  his  intention,  there  were  allowed  to  be  put  in 
evidence  against  him  the  cries  of  the  mob  made  publicly  and  orally  as  part  of 
the  res  gestcc.  To  meet  that,  what  was  the  defence  ?  The  defence  was  the 
insanity  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  and  upon  that  defence,  and  upon  the  whole 
case  they  went  into  the  widest  possible  range.  Let  the  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side  come  in  and  prove — which  is  the  best  defence  they  have  got — tbat  Andrew 
Johnson  is  insane,  and  we  shall  then  go  into  all  his  conversations  to  see  whether 
he  talked  or  acted  like  a  sane  man,  on  which  idea  in  that  case  the  defence  went 
into  Lord  George  Gordon's  acts  and  sayings,  but  in  no  other  way. 

Then,  what  is  the  next  thing  that  is  said  about  this?  They  then  go  into 
Lord  William  Russell's  case.  Lord  Russell's  case  was  one  of  those  so  elo- 
quently denounced  by  the  gentleman  who  opened  for  tbe  President  yesterday 
as  one  of  those  cases  occurring  under  the  Plantagenets  and  Tudors  which  he 
would  not  appeal  to  for  authority.  They  do  drink  at  our  fountain  sometimes. 
Tbey  have  got  back  now  to  those  cases  which  they  would  lay  a^ide  yesterday. 
They  have  come  back  to  them  to-day;  but  what  was  there  ?  The  whole  ques- 
tion was,  what  was  Lord  William  Russell's  character  for  loyalty.  The  question 
asked  the  witness  was,  what  Avas  his  character  for  loyalty,  to  which  the  reply  was 
*'good."  Then  he  was  asked  "  How  long  have  you  known  him?"  and  he  replied 
"  I  have  known  him  some  time."  Then  came  the  question  "  Did  you  ever  hear 
him  express  himself  against  the  King  and  against  the  government  ?"  to  which  the 
answer  was  "No;"  and  then  followed  the  question,  "Did  you  ever  hear  him 
express  himself  in  favor  of  insurrection  ?"  and  the  answer  was  "  No."  That  is 
precisely  as  every  lawyer  here  has  heard  the  question  of  character  inquired 
into.  The  question  is,  "  What  is  the  character  of  such  a  man  for  truth  ?"  The 
witness  says  "  Good."  That  is  not  putting  in  hearsay.  That  is  to  get  a  nega- 
tive. In  that  case  they  were  not  asking  for  what  Lord  Russell  said,  but  they 
were  offering  to  prove  that  he  did  not  say  anything  tbat  was  treasonable,  not 
what  he  did  say;  and  that  was  upon  tbe  question  of  his  good  cbaractcr. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  other  point  upon  which  this  is  i)resscd,  and 
that  seems  to  be  the  strong  point  in  the  case,  becaiise  my  friend  said  as  he 
opened  it,  "this  is  very  vital,"  hoping,  I  suppose,  that  by  j)ossibilit.y  he  might 
in  some  way  be  able  to  fright  you  from  your  propriety.  If  it  is  a  very  vital 
matter  you  will  pardon  me  for  arguing  it  at  some  length.  • 

Mr.  Staxbkkv.  Will  the  learned  manager  allow  me  one  moment  %  In  regard 
to  Mr.  Hardy's  case,  he  has  fallen  into  an  error  in  reading  the  question,  which 
was  not  the  one  at  all  I  was  upon.     He  read  as  to  general  character. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  To  that  I  say  I  have  fallen  into  no  such  error. 

Mr.  Stanhkrv.  One  moment,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  No  ;  I  cainiot  allow  you  to  interpolate  for  the  purpose 
of  stating  that  I  did  not  cite  correctly. 

Mr.  Stamhery.  One  moment  for  a  coi-rection. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  cannot  spare  a  moment,  sir. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  I  wish  to*  show  only  that  the  very  question  was  put  and 
answered  under  the  decision  of  the  court  in  that  case. 

Mr.  l\Lanager  Butler.  Allow  me  to  say  that  I  read  the  only  question  that 
was  put  and  directly  after  it  was  allowed  to  be  put 

Mr.  Stamjery.  I  shall  have  to  leave  it  to  my  associate. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  473 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Certainly.  If  you  will  turn  to  tlie  case  you  will 
find  it,  sir.  I  began  with  "  Mr.  Daniel  Stuart  examined  by  Mr.  Erskine,"  and 
I  read  from  there  to  where  the  attorney  general  said,  "  If  this  had  been  stated 
at  first  to  be  the  question  meant  to  be  asked,  I  do  not  see  what  possible  objec- 
tion I  could  have  to  it."  1  read  from  where  the  court  decided  down  to  where 
the  question  was  put  and  answered,  and  to  what  the  attorney  general  said  about 
it.  Therefore  I  made  no  mistake.  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  reading  a  portion 
and  leaving  out  a  portion  of  a  man's  speech,  and  then  commenting  upon  it. 

Now,  senators,  what  is  the  other  point  1  and  it  is  the  only  one  I  feel  any 
trouble  about.  That  is  that  some  gentlemen  may  think  that  this  question 
comes  within  the  decision  of  yesterday.  Yesterday  we  objected  to  the  Presi- 
dent's declaration  after  we  said  the  conspiracy  had  culminated.  It  was  claimed 
that  they  had  a  right  to  put  in  Avhat  he  said  when  Thomas  reported  back  to 
him,  and  the  Senate  decided  that  it  should  be  put  in  ;  but  now  they  propose  to 
go  a  month  prior  to  that  time,  and  they  propose  to  go  over  a  space  of  time 
where  we  offered  evidence  to  prove  the  President's  bad  iutent,  and  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  ruled  it  out.  I  allude  to  Cooper's  case.  We  offered  to 
prove  that  in  December  he  put  Cooper  in,  and  what  Cooper  was  doing  in  order 
to  show  the  President's  bad  intent ;  and  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  upon 
the  off"er  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  ruled  that 
out ;  and  now  the  gentlemen  propose  to  go  on  and  show  what  the  President  said 
to  Genei'al  Sherman. 

One  argument  which  I  used  to  appeal  to  prejudice  is  that  I  stated  that  the 
President  was  seeking  for  tools.  I  said  so  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  I  said  that 
he  never  found  one  in  General  Sherman.  What  I  mean  to  say,  and  what  will 
appear  to  you  and  the  country,  is  that  he  was  seeking  for  somebody  by  whom  he 
might  get  Mr.  Stanton  out ;  some  gentleman  of  the  army.  First  he  tried  Grant ; 
then  he  wanted  to  get  General  Sherman  in,  so  that  when  General  Sherman,  not 
wanting  the  cares  of  office  upon  him  for  a  moment,  ready  to  get  rid  of  them  at 
any  time,  should  resign  and  leave,  so  as  to  get  rid  of  it,  as  he  doubtless  would, 
be  could  then  put  in  somebody  else.  He  went  along ;  he  began  with  Grant, 
and  he  went  down  through  Grant  and  down  through  Sherman  and  George  H. 
Thomas,  and  down,  down,  until  he  struck  Lorenzo  Thomas,  and  then  he  found 
the  man  who  could  be  put  in.  Now,  the  gentlemen  propose  to  offer  to  prove 
that  he  did  not  find  a  tool  in  General  Sherman,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  Senate 
that  he  did  not  find  one  in  Thomas !  Do  these  two  things  hold  together  ?  Does 
one  belong  to  the  other  1  Because  he  did  not  find  a  tool,  a  proper  man  to  be 
made  an  ad  interim  Secretary,  and  to  sit  in  his  cabinet  as  an  ad  interim  Secre- 
tary, in  General  Sherman,  does  that  prove  that  thei-efore  he  did  not  find  a 
proper  man  in  Thomas  ? 

But,  then,  look  at  the  vehicle  of  proof.  What  is  the  vehicle  of  proof]  They 
do  not  propose  to  prove  it  by  his  acts.  ^VTien  they  are  offered  I  shall  be  willing 
to  let  them  go  in.  Let  them  off"er  any  act  of  the  President  about  that  time, 
either  prior  or  since,  and  I  shall  not  object,  although  the  Senate  ruled  out  an 
act  in  Cooper's  case.  But  how  do  they  propose  to  prove  it?  "  What  conver- 
sation took  place  between  the  President  and  you?"  I  agree,  gentlemen  of  the 
Senate — I  repeat  it  even  after  the  criticisms  that  have  been  made — that  you  are  a 
law  unto  yourselves.  Ton  have  a  right  to  receive  or  reject  any  testimony.  All 
the  common  law  can  do  for  you  is,  that  being  the  accumulation  of  the  experience 
of  thousands  of  years  of  trial,  it  may  afford  some  guide  to  you  ;  but  you  can 
override  it.  You  have  no  right,  however,  to  overriile  the  principles  of  justice 
and  equity,  and  to  allow  the  case  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  be  preju- 
diced by  the  conversations  of  the  criminal  they  present  at  your  bar,  made  in  his 
own  defence  before  the  acts  done  which  the  people  complain  of.  That  I  may, 
I  trust,  without  offence  say ;  because  there  is  a  law  that  nuist  govern  us  at  any 
and  all  times,  and  the  single  question  is — I  did  not  mean  to  trouble  the  Senate 


474  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

with  it  beforo,  and  never  will  again  on  tins  question  of  conversation — what  limit 
is  there  ?  If  this  is  allowable  you  may  put  in  his  conversations  with  everybody; 
you  may  put  in  his  conversations  with  newspaper  reporters — an<l  he  is  very  free 
with  those,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  newspapers.  If  he  has  a  right  to  converse 
with  General  Sherman  about  this  case  and  put  that  in,  I  do  not  see  wby  he  has 
not  a  right  to  converse  with  Mack,  and  John,  and  Joe,  and  J.  B.,  and  J.  B.  S„ 
and  T.  K.  S.,  and  X.  L.  W.,  or  whoever  lie  may  talk  with,  and  put  all  that  in. 

I  take  it  there  is  no  law  which  makes  a  conversation  with  General  Sherman 
any  more  competent  than  a  conversation  with  any  other  man.  And  where  are 
you  going  to  stop  in  this  trial  ?  Go  on  thus  and  they  will  get  the  forty,  the  sixty, 
the  ninety,  the  one  hundred  days — more  than  the  forty  they  iirst  asked,  by  sim- 
ply calling  everybody  with  whom  the  President  has  had  conversation  ;  for  I 
believe  I  may  say  without  offence,  that  he  is  understood  to  be  a  great  conversa- 
tionalist, and  on  this  principle  they  may  introduce  proof  of  all  that  he  has  said 
to  everybody  else  about  that  time  about  the  case  ;  and  if  we  may  believe  report, 
we  are  to  have  reporters  and  everybody  else  with  whom  the  President  has 
engaged  in  conversation. 

Allow  me  to  say  one  thing  further.  Gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  I  said  in  your 
hearing  to  the  learned  counsel  that  I  did  not  think  it  right  for  him  to  state  what 
he  expected  to  prove ;  and  in  order  to  prevent  his  stating  it,  I  said  he  might 
imagine  any  possible  conversation.  I  objected  to  it,  because  he  thereby  gets 
before  the  court,  before  the  court  and  jury,  before  the  court  and  the  country,  a 
supposition  that  he  could  prove  that  thing.  That  is  what  it  is  done  for;  it  is 
an  aigumcnt  to  the  prejudice ;  and  I  thought  it  then  unprofessional,  and  I  state 
that  in  that  very  book  which  he  held  in  his  hand  in  Hardy's  case  the  attorney 
general  of  England  offered  to  read  a  letter  found  in  Hardy's  possession  and  he 
began  to  read  it.  Erskine  objected,  and  said  "You  must  not  read  it  until  it  is 
allowed  to  go  in  evidence."  Said  he,  "  I  want  the  court  to  understand  what  is 
in  the  letter."  "  It  cannot  be  read  for  that  purpose.  Argue  from  its  situation, 
argue  from  where  it  was  found,  argue  from  who  signed  it,  what  its  pertinency 
or  relevancy  is ;  but  you  cannot  read  the  letter  and  put  it  in  before  the  court 
and  jury  until  after  it  is  ruled  to  be  in  evidence."  The  gentleman  in  his  prac- 
tice— I  charge  it  upon  him  here — has  seen  hundreds  of  times  a  court  stop  coun- 
sel and  say,  "  Hand  it  to  me ;  hand  the  paper  up  to  me ;  you  must  not  read  it 
until  after  it  is  ruled  upon."  I  objected  all  that  I  could,  but  an  aggregate  body 
like  this  of  course  could  not  Stop  liim  if  he  chose  to  go  on.  Now,  what  was 
said  after  he  had  argued  it  ?  He  said  he  wanted  to  show  that  the  President 
had  tried  to  get  this  officer  of  the  array  to  take  the  War  Department,  so  that 
he  could  get  Stanton  out.  That  is  wliat  we  charge,  that  he  would  take  any- 
body, do  anything,  to  get  Stanton  out.  That  is  the  very  thing  we  charge.  He 
would  be  glad  to  get  General  Sherman  to  aid  him.  He  would  have  been  glad 
to  get  General  Grant.  Failing  in  him  he  tries  General  Sherman.  Failing  in 
him  he  tries  l\Injor  (jeneral  George  H.  Thomas,  the  hero  of  Nashville.  He 
failing,  he  is  willing  then  even  to  take  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  get  Stanton  out. 
What  for  y  The  late  Attorney  General  has  said  the  purpose  was  to  drive  Stan- 
ton into  the  courts.  The  President  knew,  or  his  counsel  knew,  that  Stanton 
could  not  go  into  the  courts  to  get  back  again.     There  is  no  proper  process. 

Let  them  state  the  ])rocess,  if  they  can,  by  which  Mr.  Stanton  was  to  be  rein- 
stated in  olHce.  1  think  they  will  liiid  it  as  difficult  to  phow  to  the  Senate  such 
a  process  as  they  will  to  show  that  where  a  goHcral  law  aj)plies  to  the  States 
and  Territories  of  the  United  Statcis  it  does  not  apply  to  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia.    It  will  be  as  difficult  and  fully  as  troublesome  to  show  the  one  as  the  other. 

Now,  the  simple  question  comes  back  to  us,  and  it  is  the  only  one  on  which 
you  are  to  rule.  Are  the  conversations  of  the  I'resident  with  General  Sherman 
evidence?     If  the  conversations  with  him  are  evidence,  is  not  every  conversa- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  475 

tion  tliat  the  President  has  had  at  any  time  with  anybody  evidence  in  this  case  ? 
Where  is  the  distinction  1 

]\Ir.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  some  incidental  questions, 
partly  of  professional  propriety,  have  arisen  and  been  discussed  at  some  length 
b}'  the  learned  manager.  Let  mo  read  from  page  165  of  the  record  of  this  trial 
on  the  question  of  stating  what  is  intended  to  be  proved. 

We  objected  to  certain  testimony,  and  then  this  occurred : 

Mr.  Mau,io:er  Butler.  The  object  is  ta  sliowthe  intent  and  purpose  with  vvhicli  Genenil 
Thomas  went  to  the  War  Department  on  the  morning  of  the  22d  of  Febniaiy  ;  that  he  went 
with  tlie  intent  and  purpose  of  taking  possession  by  force  ;  that  he  alleged  that  intent  and 
purpose ;  that  in  consequence  of  that  allegation,  Mr.  Burleigh  invited  General  Moorhead 
and  went  up  to  the  War  Office.  The  conversation  which  I  expect  to  prove  is  this:  after  the 
President  of  the  United  States  had  appointed  General  Thomas  and  given  him  directions  to 
take  tlie  War  Office,  aud  after  he  had  made  a  quiet  visit  there  on  the  2Ist,  on  the  evening  of 
the  21st  he  told  Mr.  Burleigh  that  the  next  day  he  was  going  to  take  possession  by  force. 
Mr.  Burleigh  said  to  him 

Mr.  Stanbery.  No  matter  about  that.     We  object  to  that  testimony. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  do  not  know  what  you  object  to  if  you  do  not  hear  what  I 
offer. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Read  on  :  "We  object  to  it,"  and  I  stopped. 

jMr.  EvART.s.  I  have  read  what  I  have  read,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  But  stopped  a  little  short. 

Mr.  EvART.s.  I  have  read  what  I  have  read.  Now,  sir,  we  come  to  the 
impropriety  of  my  learned  associate's  having  drawn  attention  to  the  pertinency 
of  what  appeared  in  argum.ent  and  in  the  citation  of  authorities  upon  the  trial 
of  Hardy,  and  whether  that  question  was  pertinent  to  this  or  not.  Now,  I 
imderstand  the  question  which  was  there  discussed  related  exactly  to  the  intro- 
duction of  conversations  between  the  accused  and  the  witness  produced  to  prove 
them,  antecedent  to  the  period  of  the  alleged  treason ;  and  it  all  resulted  in  this, 
on  page  1096  of  24  State  Trials  : 

Lord  Chief  Justice  Eyre.  You  may  put  the  question  exactly  as  you  propose.  I  confess 
.1  wished  by  interposing  to  avoid  all  discussion,  because  I  consider  what  we  are  doing,  aud 
wliom  we  have  at  that  bar,  aud  in  that  box,  who  are  suffering  by  every  moment's  unnecessary 
delay  in  such  a  case  as  this. 

Mr.  Erskine.  I  am  sure  the  jury  will  excuse  it ;  I  meant  to  set  myself  right  at  this  bar ; 
this  is  a  very  public  place. 

Mr.  Daniel  Stuart  examined  by  Mr.  Erskine : 
The  question  was  put  exactly  as  he  proposed. 

Did  you  before  the  time  of  this  conversation  being  held,  which  is  imprrted  to  Mr.  Hardy, 
ever  hear  from  him  what  his  objects  were — whether  he  has  at  all  mixed  himself  in  that  busi- 
ness ? 

I  have  very  often  conversed  Math  him. 

And  then  he  goes  on  to  state  the  conversation. 

Now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  aud  Senators,  I  come  to  the  merits  of  this  question 
of  evidence.  This  is  a  very  peculiar  cas'e.  Whenever  evidence  is  sought  to  be 
made  applicable  to  it,  it  is  a  crime  of  the  nari'owest  dimensions  and  of  the  most 
puny  proportions  ;  it  exists  for  its  completion  and  for  its  guilt,  for  its  enormity 
and  for  its  claim  to  punishment,  upon  the  delivery  of  a  written  paper  by  the 
Pi-esident  to  General  Thomas,  to  be  communicated  to  the  Secretary  of  War ; 
and  that  oftence,  in  those  naked  proportions,  if  contrary  to  a  valid  law  and  if 
done  with  intent  which  makes  it  criminal  under  that  law,  the  Congress  in  the 
enactment  which  makes  it  indictable  has  permitted  to  be  punished  by  a  fine  of 
six  cents  and  no  more  !  That  is  the  naked  dimension  of  the  mere  technical 
statutory  offence,  and  that  is  included  witliin  the  mere  act  of  the  delivery  of  a 
paper  unattended  by  any  grave  pubhc  considerations  of  guilt  and  of  consequence 
that  should  attend  it  to  bring  it  into  judgment  here.  When  we  come  to  evidence, 
I  say  thus  puny  are  the  proportions  of  the  offence  that  thus  limited  the  range  to 
which  the  defendant  is  permitted  to  call  witnesses.     But  when  we  come  to  the 


476  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

magnificence  of  the  accusation,  as  found  on  page  75,  italicised  by  the  managers, 
we  will  eec  what  it  is  : 

"We  define,  therefore,  an  impeachable  liip:h  crime  or  misdemeanor  to  be  oiie  in  its  nature 
or  consii/ii'ncrs  suliFrrsicr,  of  some  fundiiniintdl  orcsstntial  principle  of  oovfrnment  or  hiir/ily 
vrrjiiilicud  to  the  public  interest,  and  this  iniiy  consist  of  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  of 
taw,  of  an  official  oath,  or  of  duty,  by  an  act  committed  or  omitted,  or.  without  violating  a 
positive  law,  by  the  abuse  of  discretionary  powers  from  improper  motives,  or  for  any  improper 
purpose. 

Without  any  violation  of  law,  an  act  may  be  done  in  abuse  of  discretionary 
authority  with  improper  motives  or  for  an  improper  purpose  ;  and  thus  the  widest 
possible  range  is  opened  to  this  inquiry  on  the  part  of  the  accusation,  to  bring 
within  the  range  of  guilt  the  President  of  the  United  States.  But  further,  the 
claim  is  that  it  is  a  mistake,  on  the  whole,  to  think  that  it  is  a  question  of  guilt 
or  of  innocence  ;  but,  in  the  phrase  of  the  learned  managers,  "  Is  it  not  rather 
more  in  the  nature  of  an  inquest  of  office  ?"    And  then,  on  page  77  : 

We  suggest,  therefore,  that  we  are  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
convened  as  a  coustitutiunal  tribunal,  to  inquire  into  aud  determme  whether  Andrew  John- 
sou,  because  of  nialversatiou  in  otiice,  is  longer  tit  to  retain  the  ofdce  of  President  of  the 
United  States. 

At  page  97  we  come  a  little  more  definitely  to  matter  bearing  upon  this 
question,  and  I  beg  the  attention  of  senators  to  this  : 

It  may  be  said  that  the  President  removed  Mr.  Stanton  for  the  very  purpose  of  testing  the 
coustituiionality  of  this  law  before  ihe  courts,  and  the  question  is  aslied,  Will  you  condemn 
him  as  for  a  crime  for  so  doing?  If  this  plea  were  a  true  one  it  ought  not  to  avail;,  but  it 
is  a  subterfuge.  We  shall  show  yon  that  he  has  taken  no  step  to  submit  the  question  to  any 
court,  although  more  than  a  year  has  elapsed  since  tiie  passage  of  the  act. 

Then,  at  page  108,  we  are  told  : 

Upon  the  first  reading  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  tlie  question  might  have  arisen  in 
the  mind  of  some  senator,  why  are  these  acts  uf  the  President  only  preseut(;d  by  the  House 
when  history  informs  us  that  others  equally  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  people,  if  not 
more  so,  and  others  of  equal  usurpation  of  powers,  if  not  greater,  are  passed  by  in  silence? 

To  such  possible  inquiry  we  reply  :  that  the  acts  set  out  in  the  first  eight  articles  are  but  ' 
the  culmination  of  a  series  of  wrongs,   malfeasances,   aud  usurpations   committed  by  the 
res[ioudent,  and  therefore  need  to  be  examined  in  the  light  of  his  precedent  and  concomitaut 
acts  to  grasp  their  scope  and  design. 

And  then  common  fame  and  current  history  are  referred  to,  and  confirmed  by 
a  citation  of  cases  two  hundred  and  forty  years  old  from  the  British  reports,  to 
show  that  they  are  good  ground  for  you  to  proceed  upon  in  your  verdict. 
Bringing,  then,  this  to  a  head,  the  honorable  manager  says  : 

Wlio  dues  not  know  that  from  the  hour  he  began  these  his  usurpations  of  power  he  every- 
where tleiioiuiccd  Congress,  the  legality  and  constitutionality  of  its  acticui.  aud  defied  its 
legitimate  powers,  and,  for  that  purpose,  announced  his  intentiiDis  and  carried  out  his  pur- 
jiose,  as  far  as  he  was  able,  of  removing  every  true  man  from  ot^ce  who  sustained  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States?  And  it  is  to  carry  out  this  ])lan  of  action  tiiat  he  claims  the 
unlimited  power  of  removal,  for  the  illegal  exercise  of  which  he  stands  before  you  this  day. 

These  arc  the  pretensions  and  these  the  dimensions  of  public  inculpation  of 
the  Chief  jMagistrate  of  this  nation  which  are  of  such  grave  import.  From  their 
intent  and  design,  from  thuir  involving  the  public  interests  and  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  goverinnent,  they  are  worthy  of  this  great  tribunal's  attention, 
and  of  a  judginent  that  dejioses  him  from  his  office  and  calls  upon  the  people  for 
a  re-election.  All  the  eleven  tirticles  are  upon  trial,  and  if  this  evidence  be  per- 
tinent under  any  of  them  it  is  pertinent  and  admissible  now.  And  now  I  should 
like  to  look  first  to  the  question  of  the  point  of  time  as  bearing  upon  the  admis- 
sibility of  this  evidence.  Under  the  eleventh  article  the  speech  of  the  ISth  of 
August,  186G,  is  alleged  as  laying  the  foundation  of  the  illegal  purposes  that 
culminated  in  18G8,  to  point  the  criminality,  that  is  what  made  the  subject  of 
accusation  in  that  article.  Proof,  then,  of  the  s]»eeches  of  186G  is  made  evidence 
under  this  article  eleven,  that  imputes  not  criminality  in  making  the  speech,  but 
in  the  action  afterward  pointed  by  the  ])urpuse  of  the  speech.     So,  too,  a  tele- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  477 

gram  to  Governor  Parsons,  in  January,  18G7,  is  supposed  to  be  evidence  as  bear- 
ing upon  the  guilt  completed  in  tbe  year  18C8. 

So,  too,  the  interview  between  Wood,  the  office-seeker,  and  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  in  September,  1866,  is  supposed  to  bear  in  evidence  upon  the 
question  of  intent  in  the  consummation  of  the  crime  alleged  to  have  been  com- 
pleted in  1868.  I  apprehend,  therefore,  that  on  the  question  of  time  this  inter- 
view between  General  Sherman  and  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
very  matter  of  the  public  transaction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
changing  the  head  of  the  War  Department,  which  was  actually  completed  in 
February,  1868,  is  near  enough  to  point  intent  and  to  show  honest  purpose,  if 
these  transactions,  thus  in  evidence,  are  near  enough  to  bear  upon  the  same 
attributed  crimes. 

There  remains,  then,  only  this  consideration,  whether  it  is  open  to  the'impu- 
tation  that  it  is  a  mere  proof  of  declarations  of  the  President  concerning  what 
his  motives  and  objects  were  in  reference  to  his  subsequent  act  in  the  removal 
of  Stanton.  It  certainly  is  not  limited  to  that  force  or  effect.  Whenever  evi- 
dence of  that  m.ere  character  is  offered  that  question  will  arise  to  be  disposed  of; 
but  as  a  part  of  the  public  action  and  conduct  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  in  reference  to  this  very  office,  and  his  duty  and  purpose  in  dealing  with 
it,  and  on  the  very  point,  too,  as  to  whether  that  object  was  to  fill  it  by  unwar- 
rantable characters  tending  to  a  perversion  or  betrayal  of  the  public  trust,  we 
propose  to  show  his  consultations  with  the  Lieutenant  General  of  the  armies  of 
the  United  States  to  induce  him  to  take  the  place. 

On  the  other  question  of  whether  his  efforts  are  to  create  by  violence  a  civil 
war  or  bloodshed,  or  even  a  breach  of  the  peace,  in  the  removal  of  the  Secretary 
of  War,  we  show  that  in  this  same  consultation  it  was  his  desire  that  the  Lieu- 
tenant General  should  take  the  place  in  order  that  by  that  means  the  opportunity 
might  be  given  to  decide  the  differences  between  the  Executive  and  Congress 
as  to  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  former  by  the  courts  of  law.  If  the  conduct 
of  the  President  in  relation  to  matters  that  are  made  the  subject  of  inculpation, 
and  of  inculpation  through  motives  attributed  through  designs  supposed  to  be 
proved,  cannot  be  made  the  subject  of  evidence ;  if  his  public  action,  if  his  public 
conduct,  if  the  efforts  and  the  means  that  he  used  in  the  selection  of  agents  are 
not  to  be  received  to  rebut  the  intentions  or  presumptions  that  are  sought  to  be 
raised  against  him,  well,  indeed,  was  my  learned  associate  justitied  in  saying 
that  this  is  a  vital  question.  Vital  in  the  interests  of  justice,  I  mean,  rather 
than  vital  to  any  important  considerations  of  the  cause.  Vital  undoubtedly  on 
the  merest  principles  of  common  justice,  that  when  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the 
nation  is  brought  under  inculpation  from  a  series  of  charges  of  this  complexion 
and  of  this  comprehension,  and  when  the  motives  are  assigned,  when  the  pre- 
sumptions and  innuendoes  are  alleged  which  I  have  treated  of,  that  he  shall  not 
be  permitted,  in  the  presence  of  this  great  council  sitting  upon  his  case  and  doing 
justice  to  him  as  an  individual,  but  more,  silting  in  this  case  and  doing  justice  ia 
respect  to  his  office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  doing  justice  to  the  great 
public  questions  proposed  to  be  affected  by  your  judgment — whether  the  chosen 
head  of  the  nation  shall  be  deposed  from  authority  by  the  action  of  this  court  com- 
posed of  a  branch  of  the  Congress,  and  the  people  resorted  to  again  through  the 
mode  of  election  for  a  new  Chief  Magistrate,  i  apprehend  that  this  learned 
court  of  lawyers  and  laymen  will  not  permit  this  "last  and  loose"  game  of  lim- 
ited crime  for  purposes  of  proof  and  unlimited  crime  for  purposes  of  accusation, 
that  they  will  not  permit  this  enlargement  and  contraction,  phrases  sometimes 
replaced  by  a  more  definite  and  shorter  Saxon  description. 

Mr.  Sprague,  (at  20  minutes  before  3  o'clock.)  I  move  that  the  Senate 
take  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ;  and  the  Chief  Justice  resumed  the  chair  at  five 
minutes  to  three  o'clock. 


478  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  CiiiKK  JusTicR.  Sonatovs  will  please  give  their  attention.  The  counsel 
for  the  President  will  proceed.  (After  a  pause.)  Do  the  counsel  for  the  Presi- 
dent desire  to  be  heard  further  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  No,  Mr.  Chief  Justice. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Mr.  President,  I  shall  claim  the  attention  of  the  Senate 
but  for  a  few  minutes.  My  principal  purpose  is  to  get  before  the  minds  of 
senators  the  truth  in  the  Hardy  case  as  it  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Chief  Justice, 
when  he  passed  upon  the  question  which  had  beeii  propounded  by  Mr.  Erskiue 
and  objected  to  by  the  attorney  general.     The  ruling  is  in  these  words  : 

Lord  Chief  Justice  EVRE.  Mr.  Erskine,  I  do  not  know  whether  you  can  be  content  to 
acquiesce  in  the  opiuion  that  we  are  inclined  to  form  upon  the  subject,  in  which  we  ^o  a 
certain  way  with  you.  Nothings  is  so  clear  as  that  all  declarations  which  apply  to  facts,  and 
even  apply  to  the  particular  case  that  is  charged,  though  the  intent  shuiild  make  a  part  of 
that  charge,  are  evidence  against  a  prisoner  and  are  not  evidence  for  hiui,  because  the  pre- 
sumption upon  which  declarations  are  evidence  is,  that  no  man  would  declare  anything  against 
himself  unless  it  were  true;  but  every  man,  if  he  was  in  a  difficulty,  or  in  the  view  to  any 
ditiiculty.  would  make  declarations  for  himself.  Those  declarations,  if  offercid  as  evidence, 
would  be  ollVred,  therefore,  upon  no  ground  which  entitled  them  to  credit.  That  is  the  gene- 
ral rule.  13ut  if  the  question  be — as  I  really  tiiiuk  it  is  in  tliis  case,  which  is  my  reason  now 
for  interposing — if  the  (luestion  be,  what  was  the  political  speculative  opinion  which  this  man 
entertained  toucldng  a  reform  of  Parliament,  1  believe  we  all  think  that  opinion  may  very 
well  be  learned  and  discovered  by  the  conversations  which  he  has  held  at  any  time  or  in  any 
place. 

Mr.  Erskinr.  Just  so,  that  is  my  question ;  only  that  I  ma}'. not  get  into  another  debate, 
I  beg  your  hirdship  will  hear  me  a  few  words. 

Lord  Chief  Justice  Eyke.  I  think  I  have  already  anticipated  a  misapprehension  of 
what  I  am  now  stating,  by  saying  that  if  the  declaration  was  meant  to  apply  to  a  disavowal 
of  the  particular  charge  made  against  this  man  that  declaration  could  not  be  received  :  as, 
for  instance,  if  he  had  said  to  some  friend  of  his,  "When  I  planned  this  convention  I  did 
not  mean  to  u!?e  this  convention  to  destroy  the  King  and  his  government,  hut  I  did  mean  to 
get,  by  means  of  this  convention,  the  ])uke  of  Kichmond's  })lan  of  reform" — that  would  fall 
within  the  rule  I  first  laid  down ;  that  would  be  a  declaration,  which  being  for  him,  he  couid 
not  be  admitted  to  make,  though  the  law  will  allow  a  contrary  declaration  to  have  been  given 
in  evidence.     Now,  if  you  take  it  so,  I  belieye  there  is  no  ditiiculty. 

And  upon  that  ruling  the  question  was  changed,  as  read  by  my  associate  man- 
ager, and  correctly  read  by  him,  and  all  that  followed  this  ruling  of  the  Chief 
Justice  and  the  subsequent  discussion  was  read  by  my  associate  manager.  The 
lord  chief  justice  further  said  : 

You  may  put  the  question  exactly  as  you  propose. 

That  is  after  discussion  had  occurred  subsequent  to  the  ruling  of  the  Chief 
Justice  to  which  1  have  refern^d,  and  in  which  a  change  in  the  character  of  the 
origiiial  question  was  disclosed. 

I  confess  I  wished  by  interposing  to  avoid  all  discussion,  because  I  consider  wliat  we  are 
doing,  and  whom  we  have  at  that  bar,  and  in  that  box,  who  are  suffering  l)y  every  moment's 
unnecessary  delay  in  such  a  cau.se  as  this. 

Mr.  Eii>KiNi:.  I  am  sure  the  jury  will  excuse  it;  I  meant  to  set  myself  right  at  this  bar  ; 
this  is  a  very  public  place. 

Then  follows  the  question — 

Mr.  Daniel  Stuart  examined  by  Mr.  Erskine: 

Did  you  before  thi;  time  of  this  conversation  being  held,  which  is  imputed  to  Mr,  Hardy, 
ever  hear  from  him  what  his  objects  were,  whether  he  has  at  all  mixed  himself  in  that  busi- 
ness ? 

I  have  very  often  conversed  with  him,  as  I  mentioned  before,  about  his  plan  of  reform  ;  he 
always  adhered  to  the  Duke  of  Kichmond's  plan. 

And  which  declaration 

Mr.  Pkssrndkn.  Is  that  the  answer? 

Mr.  Manager  Wll.SON.  That  is  tlie  answer.  And  which  declaration  canoe 
Avithiii  the  exception  to  the  rule  laid  down  by  the  chief  justice.  The  final 
question  was  then  put : 

From  all  ihat  you  havc^  seen  of  him,  what  is  his  character  for  sincerity  a)ul  truth? 

I  have  every  reason  to  believe  him  to  be  a  very  sincere,  simple,  honest  man. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE*  PRESIDENT.  479 

To  which  the  attorney  geneial  said  : 

If  this  had  bceu  stated  at  first  to  the  question  meant  to  he  asked,  I  do  not  see  what  pos- 
sible objection  1  could  have  to  it. 

Mr.  Fessenden.  Does  not  that  remark  apply  to  both  questions? 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  That  remark  applies*  to  the  last  question.  The 
remark  was  made  after  the  last  question  was  put;  but:,  as  1  understand  it,  the 
two  questions  are  substantially  the  same,  and  are  connected,  and  the  i-emark  of 
the  attorney  general  applied  to  both,  as  the  first  was  the  basis,  the  inducement 
to  the  last, 

Mr.  Fesse.vdeiV.  They  were  put  consecutively? 

Mr.  Manager  BtiTLER.  Nothing  between.     One  was  inducement  to  the  other. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Now,  what  is  the  question  which  has  been  propounded 
by  the  counsel  on  the  part  of  the  President  to  General  Sherman  1     It  is  this  : 

In  that  interview  what  conversation  took  place  between  the  President  and  you  in  regard 
to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

Now,  I  contend  that  that  calls  for  just  such  declai'ations  on  the  part  of  the 
President  as  fall  within  the  rule  laid  down  by  the  Chief  Justice  in  the  Hardy 
case,  and  therefore  must  be  excluded.  If  this  conversation  can  be  admitted, 
where  are  we  to  stop  ?  Who  may  not  be  put  upon  the  witness-stand  and  asked 
for  conversations  had  between  him  and  the  President,  and  at  any  time  since  the 
President  entered  upon  the  duties  of  the  presidential  ofldce,  to  show  the  general 
intent  and  drift  of  his  mind  and  conduct  dyring  the  whole  period  of  his  official 
existence  ?  And  if  this  be  competent  and  may  be  introduced,  may  it  not  be 
followed  by  an  attempt  here  to  introduce  conversations  occurring  between  the 
President,  his  cabinet,  and  General  Grant,  by  way  of  inducing  this  Senate, 
under  pretence  of  merely  defending  the  respondent,  to  try  a  question  of  veracity 
between  the  General  of  the  army  and  the  President  of  the  United  States  1  The 
interview  out  of  which  that  question  sprung  occurred  about  the  same  time  that 
this  one  did ;  and  I  suppose  the  next  offer  will  be  to  put  in  the  conversation 
between  the  President,  his  several  Secretaries,  cabinet  otHcers,  and  the  General 
of  the  army,  in  order  that  the  preponderance  of  testimony  (considered  numeri- 
cally, at  least)  submitted  here  in  this  trial  may  weigh  down  the  General  of  the 
army,  he  being  no  party  concerned  in  this  proceeding.  Such  an  offer  may  meet 
us  at  the  next  step,  because  it  was  a  conversation  which  transpired  about  that 
time. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Only  the  day  before. 

Mr.  Manager  WiLso.v.  Yes;  only  the  day  before.  We  certainly  must  insist 
upon  the  well-known  and  long-established  rule  of  evidence  being  applied  to  this 
particular  objection,  for  the  purpose  of  ending  now  and  forever,  so  far  as  this 
case  is  concerned,  these  attempts  to  put  in  evidence  the  declarations  of  the  Presi- 
dent, made,  it  may  be,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  an  impeachment  by  such 
weapons  of  defence. 

It  is  offered  to  be  proved  now,  as  tlie  counsel  inform  us,  that  the  President 
told  General  Sherman  that  he  desired  him  to  accept  an  appointment  of  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War,  to  the  end  that  Mr.  Stanton  might  be  driven  to  the 
courts  of  law  for  the  purpose  of  testing  his  title  to  that  office;  and,  inasmuch  as 
the  counsel  have  referred  to  the  opening  argument  of  my  associate  manager,  and 
seem  to  delight  in  reading  therefrom,  let  me  read  a  brief  paragraph  or  two  from 
that  opening  applying  to  this  pretended  purpose  of  the  President  of  driving  the 
Secretary  of  War  to  the  courts  to  test  his  title.  On  that  occasion  the  manager 
said : 

The  President  knew,  or  ought  to  have  known,  his  official  adviser,  who  now  appears  as  his 
counsel,  could  and  did  tell  him,  doubtless,  that  he  alone,  as  Attorney  General,  could  file  an 
information  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  warranto  to  determine  this  question  of  the  validity  of  the 
law 

Mr.  Stanton,  if  ejected  froni  office,  was  without  a  remedy,  because  a  series  of  decisions 
has  settled  the  law  to  be  that  an  ejected  officer  cannot  reinstate  himself,  either  by  quo  warranto, 
mandamus,  or  other  appropriate  remedy  in  the  courts. 


480  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  cninipcl  rofrain  from  noticing  tbis  ansAver  to  the  President's  assertion,  so 
often  uiiide,  that  he  was  only  endeavoring  to  manufacture  a  lawsuit  and  get  a 
cafie  into  the  courts ;  and  I  am  led  to  believe  that  the  purpose  was  not  the 
]iarmle.ss  one  of  getting  the  Liciitenant  General  of  the  army  in  the  position  of 
Secretary  of  AVar,  by  way  of  enabling  the  respondent  to  secure  a  judicial  decision 
of  the  coute^^ted  question  to  which  the  President  and  Secretary  Stanton  were 
parties,  but  for  the  purpose  of  getting  possession,  as  we  have  charged,  of  that 
department  for  his,  the  respondent's,  own  purposes,  and  putting  Mr.  Stanton  in 
a  position  where  he  could  not  get  into  court  and  secure  a  judgment  upon  his 
title  to  that  office — not,  1  beg  counsel  to  remember,  not  that  we  charge  that  the 
President  believed  or  expected  that  he  could  make  a  tool  of  General  Sherman; 
but  that  he  might  oust  Mr.  Stanton  from  the  actnal  possession  of  his  office  by 
getting  General  Sherman  to  accept  it,  and  thus  putting  Stanton  in  a  position 
where  he  could  not  have  his  claim  to  the  office  tested  ;  and  further  expecting  and 
believing,  doubtless,  that  General  Sherman  would  not  long  desire  to  occupy  the 
position  ;  and  when  he  might  ask  to  be  relieved  from  the  thankless  position,  to 
escape  from  the  never-ending  political  contests  of  this  city,  then  the  Adjutant 
General  of  the  army,  or  some  other  pt-rson  equally  pliant,  could  be  put  into  the 
place  vacated  by  General  Sherman,  The  President  did  not  succeed  in  that 
effort.  General  Sherman  declined  the  position  tendered,  and,  as  has  been  said, 
the  respondent  wandered  on  down  with  his  offer  of  place  and  power  luitil  he 
came  to  Adjutant  General  Thomas.,  Then  he  found  the  person  who  was  willing 
to  undertake  this  work,  who  was  willing  to  use  force,  as  he  declared,  to  get 
possession  of  that  office,  and  obey  the  orders  of  the  President ;  and  now,  with 
that  proof  of  the  President's  criminal  acts  and  intents  in  and  before  the  Senate, 
it  is  proposed  by  his  counsel  to  make  apparent  his  innocence  and  effectuate  his 
defence  by  giving  in  evidence  his  own  declarations  at  a  time  not  embraced  in  any 
of  the  former  rulings  of  the  Senate.  If  a  case  can  be  defended  in  this  way,  no 
civil  officer  of  the  United  States  can  ever  be  convicted  on  impeachment ;  and  if 
the  same  rule  should  apply  in  the  courts  of  justice,  no  criminal  will  ever  be 
convicted  for  any  offence  therein.  If  the  officer  or  the  criminal  may  make  his 
own  defi'uce  by  his  own  declarations,  he  will  always  have  one  which  will  meet  his 
case  and  work  his  acquittal. 

I  do  not  desire  longer  to  detain  the  Senate  by  prolonging  this  discussion. 
I  am  willing  to  let  this  objection  rest  upon  the  authority  produced  by  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  President,  for  under  it,  and  by  force  of  it,  the  testimony  now 
offered  must  be  excluded. 

The  CiHKF  Justice.  Senators,  the  Chief  Justice  has  expressed  the  opinion 
that  the  question  now  proposed  is  admissible  within  the  vote  of  the  Senate  of 
yesterday.  He  will  state  briefly  the  grounds  of  that  opinion.  The  question 
yesterday  had  reference  to  a  conversation  between  the  I'resident  and  General 
Thomas  after  the  note  addressed  to  Mr.  Stanton  was  written  and  delivered,  and 
the  Senate  held  it  admissible.  The  question  to-day  has  reference  to  a  conver- 
sation relating  to  the  same  subject-matter  between  the  President  and  General 
Sherman,  which  occurred  before  the  note  of  removal  was  written  and  deliv- 
ered. Both  questions  were  asked  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  intent  of  the 
President  in  the  attempt  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks 
that  proof  of  a  convcjrsation  shortly  before  a  transaction  is  better  evidence  of 
the  intent  of  an  actor  in  it  than  jiroof  of  a  conversation  shortly  after  the  transaction. 
The  Seci'etary  Avill  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  Dkakk.  Will  tin;  Chief  Jnstice  bi!  so  kind  as  to  state  the  question  sub- 
mitted to  the  Senate  and  about  to  be  voted  on  '( 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Q.  In  tliat  interview  wliat  conversutiou  took  place  between  the  I'resiJont  and  yon  iu 
regard  to  the  removal  oi"  Mr.  Stuntou? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  481 

The  Chief  Justice.  Upon  tliis  question  the  yeas  and  nays  have  been 
tliMnanded,  and  have  been  ordered.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  thit  the 
question  is  admissible  will,  as  your  names  are  called,  answer  yea;  those  of  the 
contrary,  nay.  * 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  23,  nays  28 ;  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Autliony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cole,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fesscnden, 
Fowler,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McXJreery,  Morgan,  Norton,  Pattei"sou  of  Tennessee, 
Ross,  Sprague,  Sumner,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickcrs,  and  Willey — 23. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Drake, 
Ednuinds,  Ferry,  Frelinghuysen,  Harlan,  Henderson,  Howard,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of 
Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hanipshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Stewart, 
Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates— 28. 

Not  Voting — ISIessrs.  Howe,  Saulsbury,  and  Wade — 3. 

So  the  question  was  ruled  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  Stanbery,  (to  the  witness.)  General  Sherman,  in  any  of  the  conversa- 
tions of  the  President  while  you  were  here,  what  was  said  about  the  department 
of  the  Atlantic  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  Stay  a  moment.  I  submit  that  that  falls  within  the 
ruling  just  made.     They  cannot  put  in  these  declarations. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  reduce  his  question  to  writing. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  will  vary  the  question. 

The  question  was  reduced  to  writing  and  sent  to  the  desk. 

The  (^HiEF  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  it,  as  follows  : 

What  do  you  know  about  the  creation  of  the  department  of  the  Atlantic  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  no  objection  to  what  General  Sherman 
knows  about  the  creation  of  the  department  of  the  Atlantic,  provided  he  speaks 
of  knowledge  and  not  from  the  declarations  of  the  President.  All  orders,  papers, 
his  own  knowledge,  if  he  has  any,  if  it  does  not  come  from  declarations,  we  do 
not  object  to.  Although  w^e  do  not  see  how  this  is  in  issue,  if  the  presiding 
officer  Avill  instruct  the  witness,  as  in  the  other  case,  to  separate  knowledge  from 
hearsay,  we  shall  make  no  objection.  I  have  no  doubt  the  general  knows  the 
distinction  himself.  I  desire  to  ask,  do  these  gentlemen  ask  for  the  President's 
declarations  under  this? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  ask  for  the  President's 
declarations  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  may  misianderstand  the  honorable  managers,  but  I  under- 
stood them  to  claim  that  the  I'resident  created  the  department  of  the  Atlantic 
as  a  part  of  his  unlawful  intent  by  military  force  to  oust  Congress,  or  some- 
thing of  that  kind.  Do  I  understand  the  gentlemen  to  abandon  all  claim  in 
regard  to  the  department  of  the  Atlantic  1 

j\Ir.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  not  on  the  stand,  Mr.  President.  When  I  am 
I  will  answer  questions  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  The  presiding  officer  asked 
the  leai-ned  counsel  a  question.  If  the  presiding  officer  does  not  want  an  answer, 
that  is  another  matter.  The  question  put  was,  do  you  ask  for  the  President's 
declarations,  and  thereupon  the  counsel  undertakes  to  quiz  me. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  will  be  good  enough  to 
state  whether  in   this  question  they  include  statements  made  by  the  President. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Is'ot  merely  that ;  what  we  expect  to  prove  is  in  what  manner 
the  department  of  the  Atlantic  was  created  ;  who  defined  the  bounds  of  the  de- 
partment of  the  Atlantic ;  Avhat  was  the  purpose  for  which  the  department  was 
arranged. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Is  this  conversation  subsequent  to  the  time  of  the 
removal  or  attempted  removal "? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  subsequent.     It  was  about 

the  time 

31  IP 


482  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Eva R  IS.  Prior. 

Mr.  Stamjery.  Prior  to  tlie  time,  I  believe. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  quer>tiou  to  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  ]\ranager  Butler.  I  do  not  see  that  there  ia  any  question.    I  stated 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  it,  as  follows  : 

"SVliat  do  you  know  about  the  creation  of  the  department  of  the  Atlantic  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  suppose  a  department  can  only  be  created  by  au 
order. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Does  the  honorable  manager  object  to  the  question  as 
put  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  object  to  the  question  altogether  ;  but,  if  it  is  to  be 
put  at  all.  I  w^ant  it  expressly,  carefully  guarded,  not  to  put  in  any  declarations 
or  any  information  learned  from  the  President. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the 
Senate,  whether  the  question  shall  be  put. 

The  question  being  put,  it  was  determined  in  the  negative.  So  the  Senate 
ruled  the  question  was  inadmissible. 

Mr.  Staxbery,  (to  the  witness.)  I  will  ask  you  this  question,  General 
Sherman  :  did  the  President  make  any  application  to  you  respecting  the 
acceptance  of  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  1  Did  he  make  a 
proposition  to  you — not  a  declaration — but  did  he  make  an  offer  to  you  ] 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Have  you  the  question  in  writing  ? 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Yes,  sir,  (handing  it  to  Mr.  Majiager  Butler.)  Now,  we 
propose  to  prove  an  act,  not  a  declaration. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  instructed,  Mr.  President,  to  object  to  this, 
because  an  application  cannot  be  made  without  being,  either  in  writing  or  in 
conversation,  and  then  either  would  be  the  written  or  oral  declaration  of  the 
President,  and  it  is  entirely  immaterial  to  this  issue. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  the  ground,  as  we  understand 
it,  upon  which  the  offer,  in  the  form  and  to  the  extent  in  which  our  question 
which  was  overrnled  sought  to  put  it,  was  overruled,  was  because  it  proposed 
to  put  in  evidence  declarations  of  the  President  as  if  statements  of  what  he 
was  to  do  or  what  he  had  done.  We  offer  this  present  evidence  as  executive 
action  of  the  President  at  the  time,  and  in  the  direct  form  of  a  proposed  devo- 
lution of  office  then  presently  upon  General  Sherman. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  To  that  we  simply  say  this  is  not  the  way  to  prove 
executive  action.  Anything  done  by  tiie  Executive  we  do  not  object  to. 
Applications  made  in  a  closet  cannot  be  put  in,  whether  in  tlie  form  of  declara- 
tions or  otherwise. 

Mr.  Sta.n'bery.  Of  course,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  if  Ave  offer  to 
prove  the  actual  appointment  of  General  Sherman  to  be  Secretary  of  War  ad 
intcrhn,  we  must  produce  the  paper,  the  executive  order.  That  is  not  what  we 
are  about  to  offer  now,  for  the  proffer  was  not  accepted.  What  we  oBer  now  is, 
not  a  declaration,  but  an  act ;  a  thing  proposed  by  the  President  to  General 
Sherman,  unconnected,  if  you  please,  with  any  declaration  of  any  intention. 
Let  the  act  speak  for  itself. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Verbal  or  written  ] 

Mr,  Stan'bery,  Verbal.  Would  it  have  been  any  better  if  it  had  been  in 
writing  by  a  note?  Is  it  a  question  under  the  statute  of  frauds  that  you  must 
have  it  in  writing — a  thing  that  can  only  be  made  in  writing,  and  is  not  good 
when  made  by  parol  ]  What  we  are  u[)ou  now  we  have  not  discussed  at  all. 
It  is  au  act;  a  thing  proposed  ;  an  office  tendered  to  a  party  unaccompanied  by 
any  declaration  at  all.  "  General  Sherman,  will  you  take  the  ])osition  of  Secre- 
tary of  War  ad  iutcrim  ?  "     Is  not  that  au  act.'.'     Is  that  a  declaration  merely 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  483 

of  intontion  ?  Is  not  that  the  offer  of  the  office?  We  claim  that  it  is;  and  we 
say,  therefore,  it  does  not  coinc  within  the  que.'^tion  of  dechirations  at  all.  He 
is  not  declaring  anything  about  it ;  he  is  not  saying  what  his  intention  is ;  but 
he  is  doing  an  act.  "Will  you  take  this  office,  general?  I  offer  it  to  you." 
That  is  the  question.  Let  us  have  that  act  in,  and  then  let  it  speak  for  itself, 
whether  it  makes  for  us  or  makes  against  us. 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLBR.  I  propose  only  to  claim  my  right  to  close  the  discussion 
just  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  this.  Suppose  he  did  offer  it,  what 
does  that  prove  1  Suppose  he  did  not  offer  it,  what  does  that  prove  ?  If  you  mean 
to  deal  fairly  with  the  Senate,  and  not  get  in  a  conversation  under  the  guise  of 
putting  in  an  act,  what  does  it  prove  ?  It  would  rather  prove  in  our  favor  that 
he  was  trying  to  get  General  Sherman  to  take  this  office  in  order  to  get  out 
Stanton.  And  if  it  was  the  mere  act  I  should  not  object,  perhaps.  The  diffi- 
culty is,  while  it  is  not  within  the  statute  of  frauds,  I  think  it  is  within  every- 
thing but  the  statute.  I  think  it  is  an  attempt  under  the  guise  of  an  act  to  get 
in  a  conversation. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Did  the  President  make  any  application  to  you  re.specting  your  acceptance  of  the  duties 
of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  '! 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  pnt  the  question  to  the  Senate- 
The  question  being  put,  was  determined  in  the  affirmative.     So  the  Senate 
decided  the  question  to  be  admissible. 

By  Mr  Stanbery  : 
Q.  Answer  the  question,  if  you  please.  General  Sherman. 
The  WiTiVESS,  (to  the  Secretary)   Will  you  read  it  again,  sir  ? 
The  Secretary  read  the  question,  as  follows  : 

Did  the  President  make  any  application  to  you  respecting  your  acceptance  of  the  duties 
of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  ? 

A.  The  President  tendered  me  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  on 
two  occasions ;  the  first  was  on  the  afternoon  of  January  25,  and  the  second  on 
Thursday,  the  30th  of  January. 

Q.  Mr.  Stanton  was  then  in  office,  was  he? 

A.  Mr.  Stanton  was  then  in  office  as  now. 

Q.  Was  any  one  else  present  ? 

A.  I  think  not,  sir.  Mr.  Mooro  may  have  been  called  in  to  show  some  papers, 
but  I  think  was  not  present  when  the  President  made  me  this  tender.  To  both 
of  them — shall  I  go  on  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  There  is  no  objection. 

A.  To  both  of  them  I  replied  in  writing.  My  answer  to  the  first  is  dated  on 
the  27th  of  January;  my  answer  to  the  second  is  dated  on  the  .31st  of 
January. 

Q.  Did  yon  receive  any  communication  in  writing  from  the  President  on  that 
subject  ? 

A.   £  did  not. 

Q.  What  was  the  date  of  your  first  letter  ? 

A.  The  27th. 

Q.  Is  that  letter  to  the  President  or  to  General  Grant  ? 

A.  According  to  my  notes,  the  letter  is  to  the  President ;  and  I  think  my  notes 
are  correct,  for  I  took  them  from  my  record-book  this  morning.  The  second 
letter  I  know  to  be  dated  the  31st,  also  taken  from  the  same  record-book. 

Q,  Now,  referring  to  the  time  when  the  offer  was  first  made  to  you  by  the 
President,  did  anything  further  take  place  between  you  in  reference  to  that 
matter  ?  Besides  the  tender  by  him  and  the  acceptance  or  non-acceptance  by  you, 
what  took  place  concomitantly  with  that  act? 


484  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Mana"-er  Butler.  I  suppose  yon  mean  to  except  tlie  answer? 
•  Mr.  SxAXnERY.  I  ask  in  reference  to  that  very  thing  as  concomitant  with  theact. 

Mr.  lifanager  Butler.  Wg  object,  for  the  very  plain  reason  that  this  is  now 
getting  in  the  conversations  again. 

j\[r.  Stanberv.  You  have  got  the  act. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  Ah,  yes,  senators ;  I  call  your  attention  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  this  case  is  tried.  I  warned  yon  that  if  you  let  in  the  act  they 
would  attempt  to  get  in  the  declaration  under  it.  That  was  the  opening  wedge. 
Now,  they  say  they  have  got  in  the  act  and  they  are  going  for  the  declaration, 
to  see  if  by  chance  they  cannot  get  around  your  ruling. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  What  is  your  proposition  now  to  the  senators  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  My  proposition  is,  objecting  to  this  evidence,  that  the 
evidence  is  incompetent  and  is  based  upon  first  getting  in  an  act  which  proved 
nothing  and  looked  to  be  immaterial,  so  that  it  was  quite  liberal  for  senators 
to  vote  it  in,  but  that  liberality  is  taken  advantage  of  to  endeavor  to  get  by  the 
ruling  of  the  Senate  and  put  in  declarations  which  the  Senate  has  ruled  out. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  tender  of  the  War  Office  by  the  Chief  Executive  of  the 
United  States  to  a  general  in  the  position  of  General  Sherman  is  an  executive 
act,  and  as  such  has  been  admitted  in  evidence  by  this  court.  Like  every  other 
act  thus  admitted  in  evidence  as  an  act,  it  is  competent  to  attend  it  by  whatever 
"was  expressed  from  one  to  the  other  in  the  course  of  that  act  to  the  termination 
of  it.  And  on  that  proposition  the  learned  manager  shakes  his  finger  of  warn- 
ing at  the  senators  of  the  United  States  against  the  malpractices  of  the  counsel 
for  the  President.  Now,  senators,  if  there  be  anything  clear,  anything  plain 
in  the  law  of  evidence,  without  which  truth  is  shut  out,  the  form  and  features 
of  the  fact  permitted  to  be  proved  excluded,  it  is  this  rule  that  the  spoken  act 
id  a  part  of  the  attending  qualifying  trait  and  character  of  the  act  itself. 

Mr.  ^lanager  Butler.  To  that  I  answer,  senators,  that  here  was  an  imma- 
terial act — mark,  an  act  wholly  immaterial.  The  only  qualification  that  could 
be  put  in  would  be  the  answer,  perhaps,  of  CTcneral  Sherman;  that  is  not 
ofiered;  but  the  offer  is  to  put  in  an  incompetent  conversation  as  explaining  an 
immaterial  act.  What  is  the  proposition  put  forward  hei'e  ?  It  is  that  the 
Executive  can  make  offers  of  office  to  any  man  in  the  country,  general  or  other, 
and  then  put  in  the  fact  that  lie  made  the  offer  of  the  office,  and,  as  illustrative 
of  that  fact,  put  in  everything  he  said  about  it.  That  is  the  proposition.  I 
did  not  use  the  word  "malpractice"  about  that  proposition;  but  it  is  a  most 
remarkable  proposition.  He  makes  an  act  himself,  insists  upon  putting  it  in, 
and  then  says,  "I  have  got  in  the  act;  now  you  must  let  me  explain  it."  He 
could  have  saved  himself  the  explanation  by  keeping  the  act  out.  But  that  is 
the  proposition ;  and  I  luidertake — no ;  it  is  not  worthy  of  words  or  assevera- 
tion. A  criminal  on  trial  puts  in  his  act,  presses  it  in,  and  then  s  lys,  "  I  have 
got  the  act  in  ;  now  I  must  show  what  I  said  about  it  in  order  to  explain  that 
act."     It  argues  itself. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  reduce  their  question  to  writing. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  reduced  the  question  to  writing,  and  presented 
it  to  ^Ir.  ]\Ianager  Bntler. 

Mr.  Manager  Butleu  having  read  the  question,  passed  it  up  to  the  Secretary's 
desk,  saying:  I  assume  that  it  asks  for  conversations. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question  as  follows : 

At  the  first  interview  at  wliit'li  tlio  foiuli'r  of  tlie  duties  of  the  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim 
was  made  to  you  by  tlie  I'lesideiit,  <li<l  aiiytliiup^  further  j)ass  between  you  and  tlie  President 
in  reference  to  the  tender  or  your  aeeeiitauce  of  it  .' 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  President  will  ask  the  counsel  whether  they 
expect,  under  that,  to  put  in  the  declarations  of  the  President  or  the  conversations 
of  the  President? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  485 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Senate 
as  it  is  proposed. 

Mr.  Drake.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr,  A.NTHONY.  Let  the  question  be  read. 

The  Secretary  again  read  the  question. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  23,  nays  29 ;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Bnckalew,  Cole,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessenden, 
Fowler,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morgan,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee, 
Ross,  8prao;ue,  Sumner,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — 23. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conue.ss,  Corbett,  Cra^in,  Drake, 
Edmunds,  Ferry,  Frelinghuysen,  Harlan,  Henderson,  Howard,  Howe,  Morrill  of  Maine, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampsliii'e,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman, 
Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 20. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Saulsbury  and  Wade — 2. 

So  the  Senate  decided  the  question  to  be  inadmissible. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Now,  the  second  interview,  General  Sherman :  when  did  you  say  that  was  ? 

A.  The  second  interview,  wherein  he  offered  me  that  appointment,  was  on 
the  30th  of  January. 

Q.  In  that  interview  did  he  again  make  an  offer  to  you  to  be  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim  1 

A.  Very  distinctly,  sir. 

Q,.  At  that  interview  was  anything  said  in  explanation  of  that  off'er  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham  and  Mr.  Manager  Butlbk.  We  object. 

Mr.  Evarts.  The  same  ruling,  of  course. 

Mr.  Sta.nbery.  I  only  want  it  to  be  ruled  out,  if  you  object  to  it.  Let  us 
have  the  ruling  upon  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  would  ask  the  presiding  officer  whether  that  does 
not  exactly  fall  within  the  ruling  just  made? 

Mr.  Evarts.  We  understand  tliat  it  does,  Mr.  Butler,  and  have  so  stated  to  the 
Chair.     We  have  asked  our  question,  and  we  take  the  ruling  of  the  court  against  it. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  In  these  conversations  did  the  President  state  to  you  that  his  object  was 
to  take  the  question  before  the  courts  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Biagham  and  Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  We 
object  to  that. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  their  question  to  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  suppose  they  do  not  propose 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  have  a  right  to  offer  it. 
,  Ml'.  Manager  Bingham.  We  have  a  right  to  object  to  it. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  That  we  understand  perfectly.  We  may  state  what  we 
propose  to  prove. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  But  then,  Mr.  President,  the  coin-ts  sometimes  say, 
after  they  have  ruled  a  question,  that  it  is  not  within  the  proprieties  of  the  trial 
to  offer  the  same  thing  over  and  over  again.  It  is  sometimes  done  in  a  court 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  a  bill  of  exceptions  or  a  Avrit  of  error  on  the  rulings. 
If  the  counsel  say  that  that  is  the  purpose  here,  we  shall  not  object,  because 
they  ought  to  preserve  their  rights  in  all  forms.  But  supposing  this  to  be  the 
court  of  last  resort,  if  court  at  all,  there  can  be  no  proper  occasion  over  and 
over  for  throwing  themselves  against  the  rulings. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  do  not  understand  that  the  ruling  was  upon  this  specific 
question.  It  was  the  general  question,  what  was  said,  that  was  ruled  out  those 
times.  I  want  to  make  the  specific  question  now,  to  indicate  what  we  desire  to 
prove.     I  now  put  the  specific  question  whether  in  any  of  those  interviews  the 


486  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

President  said  what  was  his  intention  in  regard  to  making  the  question  at  law  ? 
I  have  not  put  that  question  before. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  And,  Mr.  President,  my  remarks  were  in  reply  to  the 
distinct  admission  of  the  counsel  that  the  question  came  within  the  ruling  and 
that  he  expected  it  to  be  ruled  out,  but  still  intended,  to  make  the  offer. 

Mr  EvAKTS.  That  was  the  previous  question. 

'Mr.  Manager  Bi:tlkr.  Oh,  no;  this  last  one. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Xo  ;  you  are  mistaken  about  it.  Besides,  Mr.  Chief  Justice 
and  Senators,  although  there  is  no  review  by  any  court  of  your  determinations 
of  interlocutory  or  of  final  questions,  yet,  as  the  learned  managers  know,  it  is 
entirely  competent  to  bring  to  the  notice  of  the  court  that  is  to  pass  upon  the  ques- 
tion in  the  final  judgment  the  evidence  that  is  supposed  to  be  admissible,  in  order 
that  it  may  be,  as  it  is  always  if  properly  originated,  a  matter  of  argument,  tliat  the 
case  is  to  be  disposed  of  on  the  ground  as  if  it  were  admitted;  and  that  we  have 
a  right  to  do,  and  not  be  limited  to  abstractions  in  the  determination  of  these 
questions. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  will  please  reduce  their 
question  to  writing. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  And  the  difference  we  make  between  this  specific  question  and. 
the  general  question  which  has  been  excluded,  and  in  regard  to  which  we  do 
not  propose  to  trouble  the  Senate  further,  is,  that  when  a  general  conversation 
cannot  be  admitted,  if  the  objection  be  applicable,  and  it  has  been  successfully 
made  here,  then  to  exclude  a  conclusion  on  a  definite  point  the  specific  question 
may  be  put. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  reduce  their  question  to  writing. 

The  question  being  reduced  to  writing,  it  was  handed  by  the  counsel  for  the 
respondent  to  Mr.  Manager  Butler,  and  after  inspection,  handed  bj'  him  to  the 
Secretary, 

Mr.  ]\Ianager  Butler.  I  object,  Mr.  President,  to  the  question,  both  as  lead- 
ing in  form,  outrageously  so,  and  incompetent  under  the  previous  rulings. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question  as  reduced  to  writing,  as  follows  : 

In  either  of  these  conversations  did  the  President  say  to  you  that  his  object  in  appointing 
you  was  that  he  mij^ht  thus  get  tlie  question  of  Mr.  Stanton's  right  to  the  office  before  the 
Supreme  Court  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  question  just 
read 

Mr.  Howard.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  that  question. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  question  just 
read  is  admissible  will,  as  your  names  are  called,  answer  yea.  Those  of  the 
contrary  opinion  will  answer  nay.     The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  Manager  lU'TLER.  Let  the  question  be  again  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  Avill  read  the  question  again. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

In  either  of  these  conversations  did  the  President  say  to  you  that  his  object  in  appointing 
you  M'as  that  he  might  thus  get  the  question  of  Mr.  Stanton's  right  to  the  office  before  the 
Supreme  Court  ? 

Mr.  Doolittle.  Mr,  Chief  Justice,  I  do  not  know  that  I  understood  the 
ground  of  objection  of  the  managers 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  As  outrageously  k'ading  and  utterly  incompetent  and 
entirely  against  the  ruling  of  the  Senate. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  Avill  call  the  roll. 

The  Secretary  proceeded  with  and  concbuled  the  calling  of  the  roll. 

Mr.  JoH.xsoN,  (who  had  not  voted.)  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  question.  I 
did  not  hear  it  distinctly,  and  that  was  the  reason  I  declined  to  vote. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT  487 

The  Chief  Justicb.  Tlie  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

In  either  of  these  couversations  did  the  President  say  to  yon 

]\rr.  Johnson,  That  will  do,  sir.     I  vote  in  the  negative. 
Mr.  Davis,  (who  had  first  voted  in  the  affirmative.)  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  the 
question  is  leading.     I  vote  in  the  negative. 

The  result  was  announced — yeas  7,  nays  44  ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Fowler,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  and 
Vickers— 7. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bnckalew,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler.  Cole,  Conklin<T,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Cragin,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Drake,  Edmnnds,  Ferry,  Fes.senden,  Frelinglmysen, 
Grimes,  Harlan,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Howard,  Howe,  Johnson,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey, 
Sherman,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Willey,  Williams, 
Wilson,  and  Yates — 44. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Saulsbury,  Sumner,  and  Wade — 3. 

So  the  question  was  decided  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  this  question  undoubtedly 
has  been  overruled  upon  matter  of  form  at  least.  I  now  propose  to  change  the 
form  of  it.  I  do  not  want  to  be  thrown  out  upon  a  mere  technicality.  I  there- 
fore change  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.   Let  me  see  it. 

Mr.  Stanbery  handed  the  question  as  written  by  him  to  Mr.  Manager 
Butler. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr,  President  and  senators,  the  question  as  presented 
to  me  is — 

Was  anything  said  at  that  conversation  by  the  President  as  to  any  purpose  of  getting  the 
question  pf  Mr.  Stanton's  right  to  the  office  before  the  courts  ? 

Now,  Mr.  President  and  senators,  this  is  the  last  question  precisely,  without 
the  leadin^f  part  of  it,  I  so  understand.  Now,  then,  I  understand  it  to  be  a  very 
well  settled  rule  of  trials  that  where  a  counsel  deliberately  puts  a  question  lead- 
ing in  form,  and  has  it  passed  upon,  he  cannot  afterward  withdraw  the  leading 
part  and  put  the  same  question  without  it.  Sometimes  this  rule  has  been 
relaxed  in  favor  of  very  young  counsel,  [laughter,]  who  did  not  know  what  a 
leading  question  was,  but  not  otherwise.  I  have  seen  very  young  men  make 
mistakes  by  accident,  and  I  have  known  the  courts  to  let  them  up  and  say, 
"  We  will  not  hold  the  rule,  if  you  made  an  accident." 

Mr.  President,  I  call  your  and  the  Senate's  attention  to  the  fact  that  I  three 
times  over  objected  to  the  last  question  as  being  outrageously  leading,  and  I  did 
it  so  that  there  should  be  no  mistake  ;  yet  the  counsel  for  the  President  went 
on  and  insisted  not  only  on  not  withdrawing  it,  but  on  putting  the  Senate  to  the 
delay  of  having  the  yeas  and  nays  taken.  If  I  had  not  called  their  attention 
to  it  I  agree  that  perhaps  the  rule  might  not  be  enforced  ;  but  I  called  their 
attention  to  it.  They  are  five  gentlemen  of  the  oldest  men  in  the  profession,  to 
whom  this  rule  is  well  known.  They  chose  to  submit  to  the  Senate  a  tentative 
question,  and  now  they  propos'e  to  try  that  over  again,  keeping  you  voting  on 
forms  of  questions  until  your  patience  is  wearied  out.  That  is  what  they  may  do. 

I  had  the  honor  to  say  to  the  Senate  a  little  while  ago  that  all  the  rules  of 
evidence  are  founded  upon  good  sense,  and  this  rule  is  founded  on  good  sense. 
It  would  do  no  harm  in  the  case  of  this  witness  ;  but  the  rule  is  founded  on  this 
proposition  :  that  counsel  shall  not  put  a  leading  question  to  a  witness,  and  thus 
instruct  him  what  they  want  him  to  say,  and  then  have  it  overruled  and  with- 
draw it,  and  put  the  same  question  in  substance,  because  you  could  always 
instruct  a  witness  in  that  way.  Of  course  that  way  was  not  meant  here,  because 
I  assume  it  would  do  no  harm  in  any  form,  and  the  counsel  would  not  do  it ; 
but  I  think  the  Senate  should  hold  itself  not  to  be  played  with  in  this  way.     If 


488  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

vou  diooso  to  sit  here  and  have  the  yeas  and  nays  called,  I  can  sit  here  as  long 
as  anybody. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  this  is  quite  too  serious  a  business  that 
we  are  eno-ao-ed  in,  and  the  responsibility  is  too  great,  the  issues  are  too  import- 
ant, to  descend  to  the  sort  of  controversy  that  would  be  introduced  here.  The 
gentleman  says  I  am  an  old  lawyer,  long  at  the  bar.  I  hope  I  never  have  dis- 
'•raced  the  position.  I  hope  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  making  factious  opposition 
before  any  court,  high  or  low,  especially  not  before  this  body,  which  has  treated 
us  with  so  much  courtesy. 

But  the  learned  manager  intimates  here  that  I  have  deliberately  put  a  leading 
question,  resorting  to  the  low  tactics  of  an  Old  Bailey  court,  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  time  and  making  factious  opposition.     I  scorn  any  such  imputation. 

Leading  questions  !  Undoubtedly  the  previous  question  was  leading  ;  but 
was  it  intended  to  be  leading,  intended  to  draAv  General  Sherman  out  to  say 
something  that  otherwise  would  not  be  said  1  The  learned  manager  says  "Oh 
no,  it  was  not  intended,  so  far  as  General  Sherman  is  concerned,  to  be  a  leading 
question;  but  so  far  as  the  counsel  is  concerned  the  purpose  was  to  put  it  in 
that  form  that  the  counsel  might  have  another  opportunity  of  putting  it  in  a  legal 
form,"  thus  insinuating  that  deliberately  that  question  was  manufactured  in  a 
leading  form,  knowing  that  it  would  be  rejected  on  account  of  form,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  of  time  in  order  to  put  it  in  a  proper  form  ! 

Leading  questions  !  Will  the  honorable  manager  please  to  read  over  the  record 
of  this  case  and  see  hundreds  of  leading  questions  put  by  him  again  and  again. 
We  got  tired  of  objecting  to  them.  I  must  be  permitted  to  disclaim  any  such 
intention  as  this. 

This  is  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  us.  We  deem  it  to  be  so.  The 
interests  of  our  client  are  in  our  hands,  to  defend  him  the  best  way  we  can. 
We  wish  it  to  appear  what  we  desire  to  prove  and  what  we  are  anxious  to  prove. 
We  do  not'  want  to  make  any  more  argument  upon  it.  We  submit  it  to  the 
judgment  of  the  Senate.  We  put  the  question  as  to  the  matter  which  we  seek 
to  prove,  that  it  may  appear  what  it  is  that  we  seek  to  prove,  to  use  every  effort 
in  oin-  power,  not  factiously,  but  honorably,  properly,  not  to  argue  again  and 
again  the  same  point,  but  simply  to  have  the  opportunity  of  having  our  questions 
put  before  the  Senate  and  decided. 

The  Chikf  JuSTicK.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Was  aiiytljing-  said  at  that  conversation  by  the  Presitient  as  to  any  purpose  of  getting  the 
question  of  Mr.  .Stautou's  right  to  the  office  before  tlie  courts? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  desire  to  alter  the  first  phrase  by  striking  out  the  words 
"at  that  conversation,"  and  inserting  "at  either  of  these  interviews,"  so  as  to 
cover  the  same  ground  as  before. 

The  CHifc;F  Justick.  Tlie  question  will  be  so  modified.     The  Secretary  will 
read  the  question  as  modified 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Was  anything  said  at  either  of  those  interviews  by  the  President  as  to  any  purpose  of 
getting  the  (piestion  of  Mr.  Stanton's  right  to  the  oHice  before  the  courts? 

The  Oiih:f.Tlstick  put  the  question  on  the  admissibility  of  this  question,  and 
it  was  determined  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  lIl'iNDKRJsoN.  1  desire  to  ask  a  question  of  the  witness,  and  I  send  it  to 
the  desk  in  writing. 

The  CniBF  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  tho 
senator  from  Missouri. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Did  the  President,  in  tendering  you  the  appointment  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim 
express  tlie  otyect  or  jjurpose  of  so  doing? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingha.m.  Mr.  President,  we  nnist  object  to  that  question,  as 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  .489 

boing;  within  the  ruling  ah-cady  settled  by  the  court,  and  submit  it  to  the  Senate. 
It  is  both  leading  and  incompetent. 

The  CniKF  JusTicR.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Senate, 
Senators,  you  who  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  quiistion  proposed  by  the  senator 
from  Missouri 

Messrs.  Doolittle  and  Thayer  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were 
ordered. 

Mr.  Dr\KE.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  question  again. 

The  Secretary  again  read  the  question  propounded  by  Mr.  Henderson. 

Mr.  DooLiTTLB.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  have  risen  for  the  purpose  of  moving 
that  the  Senate  go  into  consultation  on  this  important  question  ;  but  as  I  see 
that  there  may  not  be  time  to-night  to  go  into  consultation,  I  move  that  the 
court  adjourn  uutil  Monday  at  12  o'clock.     ["  No  !"  "  No  !"] 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  the  senator  from  Wis- 
consin, that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  adjourn  until  Monday 
at  12  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  recurs  on  the  admissibility  of  the  question 
proposed  by  the  senator  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  Henderson.]  Senators,  you  who 
are  of  opinion  that  the  question  is  admissible  and  should  be  put  to  the  witness  will, 
as  your  names  are  called,  answer  yea  ;  those  of  the  contrary  opinion  Avill  answer 
nay.     The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  25,  nays  27  ;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Me.esrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessenden,  Fowler, 
Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnsou,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maiue,  Morton,  Norton,  Pat- 
terson of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Sumner,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers, 
and  Willey — 25. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conlding,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Ednmnds,  Ferry,  Freliughuysen,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Ver- 
mont, Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  "Wil- 
liams, Wilson,  and  Yates — 27. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Saulsbury  and  Wade — 2. 

So  the  question  proposed  by  Mr.  Henderson  was  decided  to   be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  Trumbull,  (at  4J  o'clock  )  I  move  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a 
court  of  impeachment,  adjourn  until  Monday  at  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  S'tewart,  Mr.  Sumner,  and  Mr.  Thayer  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays, 
and  they  were  ordered  ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  25,  nays  27  ;  as  follows  : 

Yea.s — Messrs.  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle, 
Fesseuden,  Fowler,  Frelinghaysen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Howe,  Johnsou, 
McCreery,  Morton,  Norton,  Patterson,  of  Tennessee,  Eamsey,  Sprague,  Trumbull,  Van 
Winkle,  and  Vickers — 25. 

Nays — Messrs.  Anthony,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Cragin,  Drake,  Edmunds, 
Ferry.  Harlan,  Howard,  liloi'gan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Veruaout,  Nye,  Patterson  of 
New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Eoss,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Willey,  Wil- 
liams, Wilson,  and  Yates — 27. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Saulsbury  and  Wade — 2. 

So  the  Senate  refused  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  Have  you  any- 
thing further  with  this  witness,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Stanberv.  I  propose  to  put  a  question  which  I  will  send  to  the  managers. 

The  question  was  sent  in  writing  to  Mr.  Manager  Butler. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  question  proposed  is  : 

At  either  of  these  interviews  was  anything  said  in  reference  to  the  use  of  threats,  intimi- 
dation, or  force,  to  get  possession  of  the  War  Office,  or  the  contrary  .' 

We  object  for  the  reason  that  it. is  leading,  and  the  substance  of  it  has  beea 
voted  upon  at  least  three  times 

Mr.  Evarts.  Do  you  say  it  is  leading  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  do  not  understand  that  it  is  leading. 


490  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

j\rr.  ^Vranaaor  P.utler.  We  do  not  care  mncli  about  the   "leading"  point. 

]Mr.  KvAKis.   You  do  not  object  to  it  as  leading  ? 

!^[I•.  Manager  ]>i:tlkk.   No,  sir. 

The  CiMKF  Justice.  The  question  will  be  read  by  the  Secretary. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

At  either  of  these  interviews  was  an3'thing  said  in  reference  to  the  use  of  threats,  intimi- 
dation, or  force,  to  get  possession  of  the  War  OfKce,  or  the  contrary  ? 

The  Chief  Justice  put  the  question  on  the  admissibility  of  the  question, 
and  it  was  determined  in  the  negative. 

After  a  pause — 

The  Chi  EF  Justice.  Have  the  counsel  for  the  President  any  further  questions  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  are  considering,  IMr.  Chief  Justice,  whether  there  is  any 
other  question  we  have  to  put  to  General  Sherman. 

Mr.  Anthony,  (at  4  o'clock  and  37  minutes  p.  m.)  1  move  that  the  Senate, 
sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  do  now  adjourn. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Let  us  finish  with  this  witness. 

The  Chief  Justice  put  the  question  on  the  motion  to  adjourn,  and  declared 
that  it  appeared  to  be  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Drake  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  I  beg  to  inquire  whether  the  managers  mean  to  cross-exam- 
ine this  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Not  at  all,  if  we  can  only  get  the  other  side  through 
with  him. 

Mr.  CoNKLlNG.  I  thought  they  were  through  with  him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.   No  ;  they  will  not  finish  with  him. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  Secretary  called  the  name  of  Mr.  Anthony,  and  he  responded. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Mr.  President,  I  rise  for  information.     I  desire 

The  (^HIEF  Justice.  The  roll  is  being  called,  and  no  debate  is  in  order. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I  desire  to  inquire  what  we  are  voting  on] 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  a  motion  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I  did  not  hear  what  the  counsel  for  the  defence  said  in 
regard 

The  Chief  Justice.  Debate  is  not  in  order.  The  Secretary  will  proceed 
■with  the  call. 

The  Secretary  concluded  the  call  of  the  roll,  and  the  result  was  announced — 
yeas  20,  nays  32 — as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthon}-,  Pjayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  DooUttle,  Edmunds,  Fowler, 
Grimes,  Henderson,  llendiicks,  Howe,  .Johnson,  McCreery,  Morton,  Norton,  Patterson  of 
Tennessee,  Trunihtill,  Van  Winkle,  and  Vickers — SO. 

Nav.s — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Ciiandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corhett,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Ferry,  Fes.senden,  Freliiifrhuysen,  Harlan,  Howard,  Mqrj^an,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Mor- 
rill of  Vermont,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Ponieroy,  Kamsey,  Ross,  Sherman, 
8prag:ne,  .Stewart,  .Snmner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  ^\'illey,  Williams,  W^ilson,  and  Yates — 32. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Saulshiiry  and  Wade — 2. 

So  the  Senate  refused  to  aj:ljourn. 

Mr.  Stanijery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  will  state  to  the  managers  and  to  the 
Senate  that,  under  these  rulings,  we  are  not  now  prepared  to  say  that  we  have 
any  further  questions  to  put  to  General  Sherman;  but  it  is  a  matter  of  so  much 
importance  that  we  desire  to  be  allowed  to  recall  General  Sherman  on  Monday 
if  we  deem  it  proper  further  to  examine  him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  are  very  desirous  that  the  examination  of  this  wit- 
ness should  be  closed,  if  possible 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Oh,  no;  we  have  no  objection. 

i\Ir.  Howe.  I  move  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court,  adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  the  Senate,  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeach- 
ment, adjourned  until  Monday  next  at  12  o'clock. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  491 

Monday,  April  13,  1868. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at 
12  o'clock  and  5  minutes  p.  m.,  and  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  havinj^  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent  also  appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  House  of  RejH-csentatives  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  headed  by  Mr.  E.  B. 
Washburne,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker 
and  Clerk,  entered  the  Senate  chamber,  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  pro- 
vided for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  journal  of  the  last  day's  proceedings  will  be  read 
by  the  Secretary, 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  read  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  on  Saturday  last,  but  was  interrupted 
at  15  minutes  past  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  Stewart,  I  move  that  the  further  reading  of  the  journal  be  dispensed 
with. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection,  the  further  reading  of  the 
journal  will  be  dispensed  with.  The  Chair  hears  no  objection.  Before  the 
counsel  for  the  President  proceed,  the  Chief  Justice  will  state  that  on  Saturday 
last  the  senator  from  New  Jersey  [Mr.  FrelinghuysenJ  had  submitted  a 
motion  for  an  order  to  remove  the  limit  fixed  by  Rule  21  as  to  the  number  who 
may  participate  in  the  final  argument  of  the  cause.  That  order  is  before  the 
Senate  unless  objected  to, 

Mr.  Sumner.  Mr.  President,  I  send  to  the  Chair  an  amendment  to  that  order 
to  come  in  at  the  end  : 

Provided,  That  the  trial  shall  proceed  without  further  delay  or  postponement  on  this 
account. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  order  which  is  proposed  by  the  senator  from  New 
Jersey  will  be  read. 

The  Secretary.  The  order  is  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  as  many  of  the  manaj^ers  and  of  the  counsel  for  the  President  be  permitted 
to  speak  on  the  final  argument  as  shall  choose  to  do  so. 

It  is  proposed  to  amend  the  order  by  adding  the  following  proviso  : 

Provided,  That  the  trial  shall  proceed  without  any  further  delay  or  postponement  on  this 
account. 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen.  I  accept  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Massa- 
chusetts. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  will  be  on  the  order  as  modified. 

Mr.  Manager  Williams.  j\Ir.  President,  with  your  leave,  and  yours,  gentle- 
men of  the  Senate,  before  taking  the  vote  on  this  question,  and  in  default  of 
any  remarks  in  support  of  the  motion  submitted  by  the  honorable  managers  ou 
the  part  of  the  House,  I  feel  constrained  to  ask  your  indulgence  for  a  word  or 
two,  not  so  much  in  the  way  of  argument  or  remonstrance  as  for  the  purpose  of 
inviting  your  attention  to  the  precedents  in  cases  of  this  sort. 

It  has  pleased  the  Senate  to  adopt  a  rule  limiting'  the  discussion  upon  the 
final  argument  of  this  case  to  two  counsel  on  each  side ;  and  this  I  may  say  is 
in  conformity  with  the  rule  which  I  believe  prevails  almost  universally  in 
ordinary  cases  in  the  trial  of  all  civil  actions,  and  in  the  trial  of  indictments  in 
the  criminal  courts,  even  though  those  cases  may  be  of  very  small  magnitude, 
and  concern  the  public  at  large  to  none,  or  but  a  very  trifiing  extent.  I  am  not 
here  to  contest  the  right  of  this  tribunal  sitting  as  a  court,  or  of  any  other  judicial 
tribunal,  to  impose  such  reasonable  limitations  upon  the  freedom  of  speech  as 


492  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  interests  of  justice  may  require,  or  as  may  be  necessary  f  o  facilitate  its 
proper  administration.  I  admit  that  time  is  legitimate  consideration;  but  in  the 
text  of  Magna  Charta,  it  comes,  I  tliink,  after  justice  :  "  we  will  not  sell,  we  Avill 
not  deny,  we  will  not  delay  right  or  justice." 

It  struck  me,  howev^er,  that  the  effect  of  this  rule  was  to  create  a  condition 
of  things  which  was  calculated,  in  some  degree,  to  embarra:*s  the  gentlemen 
who  have  been  sent  here  to  conduct  this  case  on  the  part  of  the  House  and 
the  people.  The  House,  acting  upon  its  discretion  and  upon  a  full  conscious- 
ness of  the  importance  of  this  case,  has  devolved  this  responsible  task  upon 
seven  of  its  members.  In  this  particular,  although  the  case  is  one  without  a 
precedent,  they  certainly  have  not  deviated  from  the  ordinary  rule.  I  know 
no  cases  in  which  the  number  has  been  less  than  five.  There  are  many,  I 
think,  where  it  has  amounted  to  as  much  as  eleven.  The  effect,  however,  of 
this  rule  will  then  be  to  exclude  from  the  debate  upon  this  question — I  mean 
the  final  debate,  and  I  take  that  to  be  really  and  substantially  the  only  import- 
ant one — at  least  four  of  the  managers  appointed  by  the  House. 

If  time  were  a  matter  of  importance — and  I  am  now  willing  to  admit  that  it 
is,  as  the  House  concedes  in  its  proceedings  here,  in  the  articles  which  it  has 
presented,  and  in  the  whole  conduct  of  its  managers,  as  exhibited  before  you — 
it  would  have  seemed  to  me,  that  while  a  reasonable  limitation  would  be  proper, 
it  would,  perhaps,  have  relieved  us  to  some  extent,  and  enabled  all  the  managers 
to  perform  what  they  might  conceive  to  be  their  duties  as  imposed  upon  them 
by  the  House  of  Representatives,  if  this  honorable  body  had  undertaken  to  say 
liow  much  time,  or,  in  other  words,  how  many  hours,  the  public  convenience  and 
the  interests  of  the  state  would  allow  them  to  give  to  the  prosecution  in  this  case. 
In  that  event  the  time  allowed  could  have  been  divided  and  apportioned  among 
the  managers,  and  that  would  have  been  in  conformity  with  the  terms  of  the 
rule  in  regard  to  interlocutory  motions  where  an  hour  has  been  assigned  to  each 
side  and  the  privilege  left  to  members  of  saying  by  whom  the  several  questions 
may  be  discussed.  If  the  rule  had  been  modified  .in  tliis  way,  the  managers, 
as  I  have  observed,  would  have  been  relieved,  because  they  could  then  have 
distributed  the  several  parts  among  themselves. 

It  struck  me,  however — and  I  rose  merely  for  the  purpose  of  calling  your 
attention  to  the  precedents — that  the  rule  was  an  unusual  one.  It  did  not  meet 
the  approbation  of  the  managers  in  the  first  instance ;  and  when,  as  they  did, 
under  a  sort  of  compulsion  imposed  upon  them,  distribute  the  parts  in  this  drama, 
if  I  may  be  allowed  to  call  it  so,  they  directed  their  chairman  to  make  this  ap- 
plication. It  has  been  postponed  ;  it  is  now  made  and  is  now  before  you.  They 
thought  the  rule  was  unusual.  I  think  they  all  shared  in  that  opinion.  I  have 
taken  very  little  time  myself  to  look  into  the  precedents,  but  since  the  motion 
has  been  made  I  have  thought  it  was  my  duty  so  to  do,  and  I  desire  to  state 
now  to  this  honorable  Senate  what  is  the  result  in  ordinary  cases ;  and  this,  I 
think,  will  not  be  considered  one  of  that  description. 

There  have  been  but  five  cases  within  our  history  of  impeachments  liefore 
riie  Senate  of  the  United  States.  The  first  of  them  was  the  case  of  Blount, 
which  was  tried,  I  think,  in  the  year  179S.  That  was  the  impeachment  of  a 
senator ;  it  went  off  upon  a  collateral  question  ;  which  was  as  to  the  fact  whether 
a  member  of  the  Senate  was  an  officer  impeachable  under  the  Constitution.  The 
next  case  was  the  case  of  Judge  Pickering,  of  New  Hampshire.  The  charge 
there  was  drunkenness.  The  defence  put  in — if  there  can  be  said  to  have  been 
a  defence  put  in  regularly,  where  the  respondent  did  not  appear  by  counsel — 
was  insanity.  That  question  was  tried  in  advance  ;  it  was  ruh;d  against  him  ; 
and  therenj)on,  upon  the  motion  of  the  members  of  the  House,  at  the  special 
ins^tance  and  upon  the  special  order  of  the  House  itself,  to  whom,  I  believe,  the 
question  was  then  referred,  the  case  was  submitted  without  argument,  and  a 
judgment  rendered  against  the  defendant. 


BirEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  493 

The  third  cnse  was  that  of  Justice  Chase.  There  the  numher  of  managers 
was  seven  Thi-y  were  all  heard  except  one,  and  yet  the  number  of  arguments 
made  was  equal  to  the  number  of  managers,  because  the  default  of  that  one,  if 
it  was  a  default,  was  supplied  by  two  speeches  from  Mr.  llandolph,  the  chair- 
man, who  opened  the  case  and  closed  it. 

The  next  case  was  that  of  Judge  Peck.  There  the  number  of  managers  was 
five.     They  all  participated  in  tin;  argument. 

In  none  of  these  cases  does  there  seem  to  havebeen — I  may  be  mistaken,  and 
stand  subject  to  correction  if  I  am  wrong — any  question  as  to  the  right  of  the 
House  to  be  heard,  if  it  desired,  through  all  its  managers.  If  there  was  any 
discussion  then,  or  any  rule  adopted  on  the  subject  at  that  or  any  other  time, 
members  of  the  Senate  who  have  participated  in  the  framing  of  these  rules  must 
be  of  course  aware  of  it,  and  will  be  able  to  make  the  answer  in  their  votes. 
There,  however,  as  I  have  already  remarked,  the  course  was  the  same  as  in  the 
case  of  Justice  Chase. 

The  last  case  was  the  case  of  Judge  Humphreys.  That  took  place  at  the 
commencement  of  the  war.  There  there  was  no  appearance,  and  of  course  no 
defence,  and  a  sort  of  judgment  was  taken  by  default,  something,  perhaps,  in 
the  nature  of  a  judgment  of  outlawry. 

It  seems,  then,  that  in  the  only  two  cases  that  have  been  contested  in  this 
country  before  this  Senate,  the  rule  has  been  that  all  the  managers  appointed 
by  the  House  should  be  allowed  to  participate  in  the  discussion. 

How  is  it  elsewhere]  I  have  not  chosen  to  go  beyond  the  waters  to  look 
into  the  precedents  ;  but  thei-e  is  one  case  in  British  history  Avhich  is  familiar  to 
all  of  us,  which  is  associated,  I  may  say,  with,  the  school-boy  recollection  of 
every  man  in  this  nation,  of  every  man,  indeed,  who  is  familiar  with  our  language, 
a  case  made  memorable,  I  suppose,  mainly,  not  by  the  peculiar  interest  Avliich  it 
involved,  but  by  the  fact  that  it  was  illustrated  by  the  splendid  genius  of  some  of 
the  greatest  men  that  England  has  ever  produced.  It  was  not  because  Warren 
Hastings  was  the  governor  general  of  Bengal — that  was  a  small  matter,  held,  I 
believe,  by  the  grace  of  the  British  East  India  Company — but  because  such  men 
as  Edmund  Burke  and  Richard  Brinsley  Sheridan  were  among  the  managers. 
It  was  such  men  as  those  who  made  the  case  an  epoch  in  parliamentary  history. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  there  was  another  reason  for  it,  and  that  was 
its  long  duration  It  continued,  I  believe,  for  as  long  a  period  as  seven  years.  I 
beg  senators  to  understand  that  I  do  not  quote  it  as  an  authority  on  that  point ; 
but  I  think  it  will  be  remembered  by  all  of  them  that  the  labor  of  argumenta' 
tion  ^v!\s  distributed  among  all  the  managers,  the  articles  being  numerous,  com- 
plicated, and  elaborate,  though  I  su})pose  that  the  fact  of  all  the  managers  par- 
ticipating had  nothing  to  do  possibly  with  the  prolongation  of  the  time. 

And  now,  in  view  of  these  precedents,  1  would  desire  to  ask  how  does  the 
present  case  compare  with  them  ?  Is  it  an  ordinary  one  ?  Why,  it  dwarfs  them 
all  into  absolute  nothingness.  There  is  nothing  in  the  world's  history  that  com- 
pares with  this.  It  makes  an  epoch  in  history,  and  therefore  I  may  well  say 
that  you  are  making  history  to-day.  And  therefore,  too,  I  think  it  is,  that  upon 
questions  of  this  sort  you  should  so  rule  as  to  show  to  posterity  that  you  do 
properly  appreciate  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  involved.  Senators,  I  feel 
myself  the  difticulty  of  realizing  its  magnitude.  I  know  how  hard  it  is  for  us, 
even,  who  are  the  actors  in  this  great  drama,  to  rise  to  the  height  of  this  great 
argument.  Why,  what  is  the  case  ?  That  of  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court 
or  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  ?  That  of  a  custom-house  officer  i' 
No.  It  is  the  case  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  a  great  people,  of  an  enquire 
reaching  from  ocean  to  ocean,  and  comprehending  within  its  circumference  forty 
millions  of  free,  intelligent,  thinking  people,  who  are  looking  upon  your  doings 
and  waiting  in  breathless  suspense  for  your  verdict.  That  is  the  case  now  before 
you  ;  and  if  in  the  case  of  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court — and  from  my  habitual 


494  IMPEACnMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

respect  for  that  tribunal,  I  would  not  be  understood  to  speak  disparagingly  of 
the  position — or  if  in  the  case  of  a  judge  of  the  district  court,  it  was  thought 
improper  to  impose  any  limitations,  where  the  number  of  managers  was  the 
same  as  now,  what  shall  be  said  of  the  application  in  a  case  like  this  of  a  rule 
which  prevails,  as  I  have  already  remarked,  in  all  the  courts,  even  in  the  most 
indifferent  causes  ?  It  can  only  be  accounted  for  in  one  way  :  either  that  the 
case  was  of  small  consequence,  or  that  it  was  so  plain  that  the  judges  required 
no  professional  research  and  no  argument  to  aid  them. 

And  now  I  desire  only  to  say  in  conclusion,  in  order  that  I  may  not  be  misun- 
derstood, that  in  the  remarks  which  I  have  made  I  have  not  been  moved  by  any 
considerations  that  were  personal  to  myself.  I  have  lived  long  enough  to  out- 
live the  time  when  the  ambition  to  be  heard  is  felt  by  men  ;  I  have  lived  too 
long,  at  all  events,  to  think  it  worth  while  to  press  an  argument  upon  an  unwil- 
ling judge,  whatever  may  be  the  reasons  by  which  he  may  be  influenced,  wliether 
he  may  regard  the  case  as  too  clear  a  one,  or  whether  he  may  consider  it  as  so 
iniimportant  as  not  to  be  entitled  to  a  reasonable  amount  of  time.  I  do  not 
know,  if  you  relax  this  rule,  whether  I  shall  be  personally  able  to  take  advan- 
tage of  it  or  not.  That  will  depend  upon  my  strength  ;  that  will  depend  again 
upon  the  feeling  that  I  may  have  as  to  the  necessity  of  anything  ad'litional  to 
what  may  be  said  by  others.  I  felt  it,  however,  to  be  my  duty  to  enter  my  pro- 
test— and  I  do  it  most  respectfully — against  what  may  be  drawn  into  a  prece- 
dent hereafter.  If  in  a  case  like  this  the  argument  may  be  limited  to  tM'o,  how 
will  it  be  when  another  supreme  judge  is  arraigned  before  another  Serate  for 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  ?  I  take  it  for  granted  that,  measuring  things 
by  their  comparative  proportions,  another  Senate  would  feel  authorized  to  reduce 
the  number  of  counsel  to  one ;  and  if  it  came  to  a  district  judge  or  a  custom- 
house officer  I  do  not  know  whether  they  might  not  feel  authorized  to  deny  that 
privilege  altogether. 

Mr.  Manager  Stkvens.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  have  but  a  word  to  say,  and 
that  is  of  very  little  importance.  I  do  not  expect  to  be  able,  if  allowed,  to  say 
many  words  upon  this  subject.  There  is  one  single  article  which  I  am  some- 
where held  responsible  for  introducing,  and  a  single  article  only,  which  I 
wish  to  argue  at  a  very  brief  length  ;  but  I  desire  that  my  colleagues  siionld  have 
full  opjjortunity  to  exercise  such  liberty  as  they  deem  proper  in  the  argument. 

I  have  no  objection  myself — I  do  not  speak  for  my  colleagues — if  the  Senate 
choose  to  limit  our  time,  to  their  doing  so,  and  fixing  it  at  what  they  think 
reasonable,  what  one  gentleman  here  would  occupy,  for  I  find  they  occupy  three 
days  sometimes  here.  I  am  willing  to  allow  the  Senate  to  fix  the  time,  and  let 
the  managers,  those  who  are  not  already  expected  to  speak  in  conclusion,  to 
divide  that  time  among  themselves :  however,  sir,  this  is  a  mere  suggestion. 

I  merely  wish  to  say  that  I  trust  some  further  time  will  be  given,  as  there 
are  two  or  three  subjects  on  which  for  a  short  time,  perhaps  an  hour  or  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour,  some  of  us  may  be  anxious  to  give  the  reasons  why  we 
were  so  pertinacious  in  the  House  in  insisting  upon  their  introduction  after  the 
House  had  reported  leaving  them  out.  I  confess  I  feel  in  that  awkward  posi- 
tion that  I  owe  it  to  myself  and  to  the  country  to  give  the  reasons  why  I 
insisted,  with  what  is  called  obstinacy,  in  introducing  one  of  the  articles;  but  I 
am  willing  to  be  confined  to  any  length  of  time  which  the  Senate  may  deem 
proper.  What  I  have  to  say  I  can  say  very  briefly.  Indeed,  I  cannot  say  it 
at  any  great  length,  if  I  would.  I  merely  maki-  tliis  suggestion,  and  beg  the 
pardon  of  the  Senate  for  having  obtruded  thus  long  upon  tlieir  time  when  they 
ought  to  proceed. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  counsel  i\n-  the  President  desire  to  submit  any 
remarks  to  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Sherman.  Mr.  President,  I  submit  an  amendment,  which  I  desire  to  be 
added  to  the  order  as  it  stands. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  495 

The  Chief  Justick.  The  araendment  will  be  read  by  the  clerk. 

Mr.  Frelixghuysb.v.  Mr.  President,  before  the  amendment  of  the  senator 
from  Ohio  is  submitted,  I  desire,  if  I  am  at  liberty,  to  modify  the  resolution 
somewhat  by  adding  a  further  proviso  that  only  one  counsel  on  the  part  of  the 
managers  shall  be  heard  in  the  close.  It  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  resolution 
to  change  the  rule,  excepting  as  to  the  number  who  should  speak. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order  as  modified  by  the 
senator  from  New  Jersey. 

The  Secretary.  The  order,  as  modified  by  the  mover,  now  reads  : 

Ordered,  That  as  many  of  the  managers  and  of  the  counsel  for  the  President  be  permitted 
to  speak  on  the  tinal  argunieut  as  shall  choose  to  do  so  :  Provided,  That  the  trial  shall  pro- 
ceed without  any  further  delay  or  postponement  on  this  account:  And  provided  further, 
That  only  one  manager  shall  be  heard  in  the  close. 

The  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Sherman)  is  to  add : 

But  the  additional  time  allowed  by  this  order  to  each  side  shall  not  exceed  three  hours. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  am  very  unwilling 
myself  to  make  any  remarks  upon  this  resolution,  because  I  am  so  situated, 
upon  the  judgment  of  the  managers,  that  it  is  a  delicate  matter  for  me  to  do  so; 
and  had  it  not  been  for  the  qualification  made  by  the  honorable  senator  from 
New  Jersey  I  should  have  said  nothing  But  if  the  Senate  will  consider  that 
in  the  case  of  Judge  Peck,  after  the  testimony  was  submitted  to  the  Senate,  it 
was  first  summed  up  by  two  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House ;  that  then  the 
counsel  for  the  respondent  argued  the  cause  of  the  respondent  by  two  of  their 
number,  and  that  then  the  case  was  closed  for  the  House  of  Ilepresentatives  by 
two  arguments  made  by  the  managers ;  if  the  Senate  will  consider  that  in  the 
trial  of  Judge  Chase  the  argument  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
and  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  was  closed  by  three  managers  after  the 
testimony  had  been  submitted  and  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  respondent  had 
been  closed  ;  if  they  will  consider  that  in  the  trial  of  Judge  Prescott,  in  Massa- 
chusetts— which,  I  venture  to  say  in  this  presence  was  one  of  the  most  ably- 
conducted  trials  in  the  history  of  impeachments,  either  in  this  country  or  in 
Great  Britain,  on  the  part  of  the  managers  sustained  by  Chief  Justice  Shaw, 
and  on  the  part  of  the  respondent  by  Mr.  Webster — that  two  arguments  were 
made  by  the  managers  of  the  house  of  representatives  on  the  part  of  the  house 
and  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  that  Commonwealth  after  the  case  of  the 
respondent  had  been  closed  both  upon  the  evidence  and  upon  the  argument,  I 
think  it  needs  no  further  illustration  to  satisfy  this  tribunal  that  the  cause  of 
the  people,  the  cause  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  if  this  case  should  be 
opened  to  full  debate  on  the  part  of  the  five  gentlemen  who  represent  the 
respondent  here,  ought  not  to  be  left  to  the  close  of  a  single  individual. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  order  as  moved 
by  the  mover,  arid  as  proposed  to  be  modified  by  the  member  from  Ohio. 

The  Secretary  read  the  order  as  modified  by  Mr.  Prelinghuysen,  and  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Sherman. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  we  hope  this  extension  of 
time  will  not  be  an  injury  to  us  in  disguise.  We  have  neither  asked  it  nor 
objected  to  it;  it  comes  from  the  opposite  side  to  have  more  counsel  than  are 
already  assigned  by  the  rules  which  have  been  adopted.  We  make  no  objection ; 
no  objection  if  all  seven  of  my  learned  friends  argue  this  case;  but  as  I  under- 
stand the  amendment  offered  by  the  senator  from  Ohio,  it  is  that  in  the  final 
argument,  as  to  which  as  yet  there  is  no  limitation  of  time,  but  only  of  the 
number  of  counsel,  the  provision  as  to  the  addition  of  counsel  shall  be  amended 
by  a  proviso  that  the  additional  time  shall  not  be  more  than  three  hours.  The 
time  already  is  indefinite.  The  rule  fixes  only  the  number  of  counsel,  not  the' 
time  that  they  shall  occupy.  As  yet  the  Senate  have  not  said  that  in  the  final 
summing  up,  or  indeed  in  the  opening  which  we  have  had,  counsel  shall  be  limited 


496  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

as  to  tinio.  I  do  not  know  in  what  position  we  pli.onld  be  if  this  amondraent  of 
the  senator  from  Ohio  is  adopted.  Three  hours  in  addition  to  what  ?  Three  hours 
in  addition  to  a  time  that  is  made  indefinite  by  the  rule!  I  cannot  understand 
it.  I  only  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  it,  that  there  maybe  no  misunder- 
standing hereafter  ;  and  as  to  that  matter  of  a  limit  as  to  time,  I  hope  we  may 
say  that  not  one  of  us  has  any  idea  of  lengthening  out  time  for  any  purpose  of 
delay.  I  think  the  Senate  can  have  enough  confidence  iu  us  to  know  that  when 
we  are  through  we  will  stop ;  that  we  will  only  take  as  much  time  as  in  this 
great  case  we  may  deem  to  be  necessary.  I  know  if  we  go  beyond  that  we 
shall  lose  the  attention  of  the  court.  Not  an  instant  do  v^e  mean  to  speak  after 
we  have  concluded  what  is  material  to  us  in  the  case.  If  we  attempt  to  take 
time  beyond  that  for  something  out  of  the  case  we  shall  very  soon  see,  senators, 
in  the  expression  of  your  faces,  that  you  are  not  listening  to  tis  with  attention. 
For  one  I  can  say,  and  I  think  I  can  speak  for  my  learned  associates,  that  we 
shall  not  take  a  moment  more  than  we  consider  necessary  ;  every  moment  neces- 
sary for  the  case,  not  a  moment  unnecessarily  in  our  best  judgment  as  to  how 
we  are  to  present  the  case.  I  know  it  is  the  custom  of  courts  to  limit  the  time 
of  counsel — they  must  do  it — in  their  ordinary  business.  It  is  done  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  ;  but  when  there  is  an  important  case  even  before  that 
court  Avhich  limito  each  argument  of  counsel  to  two  hours  generally,  whenever  the 
court  is  asked  iu  an  important  case  to  enlarge  the  time,  they  do  it  and  give  four 
hours.  On  one  occasion  I  had  myself  two  entire  days  for  an  argument  in  that 
court ;  but  that  case,  important  as  it  was,  has  no  sort  of  comparison  with  the  case 
now  before  you.  Counsel,  when  they  are  limited  to  an  exact  time,  are  embawassed. 
by  it.  It  is  a  rule  that  keeps  our  attention  continually  on  the  clock  and  not  on  the 
case ;  we  are  afraid  to  begin  and  follow  up  an  argument  for  fear  we  shall 
exhaust  too  much  time  on  that  and  will  be  caught  by  the  punctual  hour  before 
we  come  to  other  important  matters.  Now,  I  hope  it  is  not  necessary  to  suggest 
that  counsel  are  not  here  to  use  unnecessary  time,  who  have  a  reputation  to 
sustain  before  the  world  and  before  this  Senate.  I  beg  them  not  to  decide  tliis 
question  upon  any  idea  tliat  we  have  abused  the  liberty  which  is  or  may  be 
accorded  to  us. 

Mr.  SnHRiMAN.  Mr.  President,  I  will  Avithdraw  my  amendment,  as  I  see 
there  will  be  difficulty  in  discriminating  betAveeu  those  Avho  are  limited  b}'  time 
and  those  who  are  not. 

The  CfiiEF  JusTicK.  The  senator  from  Ohio  withdraws  his  amendment. 
The  question  recurs  on  the  order  proposed  by  the  senator  from  New  Jersey,  as 
modiiied  by  him. 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLKR.  I  do  not  rise,  sir,  to  debate  this  question,  but  simpl)'-  to 
ask  the  counsel  for  the  President,  while  they  do  not  ask  fdr  this,  whether  they 
desire  it  1  1  should  like  to  know  whether  they  desire  this  extension  ?  They  may 
think  that  they  would  not  ask  it,  but  the  question  is  whether  they  would  wish 
it,  because  if  they  do  not  wish  it  it  would  make  a  very  decided,  impression  on 
my  mind  as  to  ■whether  it  should  be  granted.  I  want  to  say  here,  however,  Mr. 
President;  that  1  speak  without  prejudice  to  anybody,  because,  from  the  very 
kind  attention  I  have  received  from  the  Senate  in  the  opening  argument,  which, 
unfortunately,  fell  upon  me,  I  do  not,  in  any  event,  under  any  relaxation  of  the 
rule,  propose  to  trespa.ss  a  singh;  moment  in  the  closing  argument  upon  the 
attention  of  the  Senate,  but  to  leave  it  to  the  very  much  better  argumentation 
of  my  associates.  Therefore  1  speak  wholly  without  any  wish  upon,  my  own 
part  except  that  such  argumentation  may  he  had  as  shall  convince  the  country 
that  the  case  has  been  fully  stated  on  the  one  side  ami  the  other. 

Mr.  SuAlNKK.  Mr.  I'resident,  1  should  like  to  have  the  resolution  reported. 

The  CliiKF  JuS'ri(;K.  The  Secretary  will  wdA  the  resolution  again. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  as  iiiuny  ui'  the  iiiaiiagcrs  and  uf  the  coun.sel  for  the  President  be  permitted 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  497 

to  speak  on  tlie  final  arp^ument  as  shall  choose  to  Jo  so:  Provided,  That  the  trial  shall  pro- 
ceed without  any  further  delay  or  jiostponement  ou  this  account :  And  provided  further, 
That  only  one  manager  shall  be  heard  in  the  close. 

Mr.  Sumner.  Mr.  Presiflent,  I  move  to  strike  out  the  last  proviso  and  insert 
the  substitute  which  I  send  f.o  the  chair. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  senator  from  Massachusetts. 

The  Secretary.  It  is  proposed  to  strike  out  the  last  proviso  in  the  following 
words  : 

And  provided  further,  That  only  one  manager  shall  be  heard  in  the  close. 

And  in  lieu  thereof  to  insert  : 

And  provided.  That  according  to  the  practice  in  cases  of  impeachment  the  several  mana- 
gers who  speak  shall  close. 

Mr.  Co.NKMNG.  I  beg  to  ask  an  answer  from  the  counsel  for  the  President  to 
the  question  propounded  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  I  was  rising,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  to  say  a  word  in 
reference  to  this  question  when  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  sent  up  an  amend- 
ment CO  the  Clerk.  It  Will  not  be  In  the  power  of  the  counsel  for  the  Presi- 
dent, if  the  rule  should  now  be  enlarged,  to  contribute  the  aid  of  more  than  two 
additional  advocates  in  behalf  of  the  President.  The  rule  was  early  adopted  and 
known  to  us,  and  the  arrangement  of  the  number  of  counsel  was  accommodated 
to  the  rule.  Beyond  that  we  have  nothing  to  say.  If  the  rule  shall  be  enlarged, 
all  of  us  will  with  pleasure  take  advantage  of  the  liberality  of  the  Senate. 

In  regard,  however,  to  the  arrangement  of  six  against  four,  as  would  be  the 
odds  which  we  should  need  to  meet,  we  naturally  might  feel  some  interest,  par- 
ticularly if  it  is  a  proposition  to  be  entertained  by  the  court  that  all  our  oppo- 
nents should  speak  after  we  had  g'ot  through,  and  we  should  have  nobody  to 
reply  to  before  we  made  our  arguments.  The  last  speech  hitherto  has  been 
made  in  behalf  of  the  President ;  but  if  there  is  any  value  in  debate  whatever, 
it  is  that  when  it  begins  and  is  of  controversy  between  two  sides,  each  as  fairly 
as  may  be  should  have  an  opportunity  to  know  and  reply  to  the  argument  of 
the  other.  Now,  the  present  rule,  very  pro gerly  as  it  seems  to  us,  and  wholly 
in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  all  matters  of  forensic  debate,  thus  disposes 
of  the  matter  by  requiring  that  the  managers  shall  open  by  one  of  their  number, 
and  the  two  counsel  for  the  President  allowed  to  speak  and  make  their  reply, 
and  then  the  second  manager  appearing  in  that  behalf  to  close.  So,  too,  if  the 
number  should  be  enlarged,  it  would  seem,  especially  if  there  should  be  the 
disparity  of  six  against  four,  an  equal  and  equally  just  arrangement  should  be 
made  in  the  distribution  of  the  arguments  of  the  managers  and  of  the  counsel. 
Beyond  that  we  have  nothing  to  say. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  the  question  is  on  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  senator  from  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  President,  I  move  to  lay  the  order  and  the  amendment 
upon  the  table,  with  a  view  of  having  a  test  vote  as  to  whether  the  original 
rule  shall  or  shall  not  be  changed. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  raise  a  question  of  order,  Mr.  President,  that  in  this  Senate, 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  an  impeachment,  there  is  no  authority  for  moving  to  lay 
any  proposition  on  the  table.  We  must  come  to  a  direct  vote,  I  think,  one 
way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  Howard.  Debate  is  out  of  order. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  cannot  undertake  to  limit  the  Senate 
in  respect  to  its  mode  of  disposing  of  a  question  ;  and  as  the  senator  from 
Oregon  (Mr.  William.?)  announced  his  purpose  to  test  the  sense  of  the  Senate 
in  regard  to  whether  they  will  alter  the  rule  at  all,  the  Chief  Justice  coixceives 
his  motion  to  be  in  order. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  motion. 
32  I  P 


498  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  taken. 

Mr.  Anthony.  Jly  colleague  (Mr.  Sprague)  Ims  been  called  away  by  a 
summon?  to  attend  the  bedside  of  a  friend  with  whom  he  has  held  the  most 
intimate  relations  for  20  years,  and  who  sent  a  request  by  telegraph  that  be 
would  come  and  see  him  before  he  died.  I  make  this  explanation,  as  under 
no  ordinary  circumstances  wobld  he  have  been  absent  from  the  service  of  the 
Senate  even  for  a  single  day. 

The  result  was  announced — yeas  38,  nays  10;  as  follows  ; 

Yeas — Messrs.  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Crao-in,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fessendeu,  Harlan,  Heudersou,  Hendricks,  Howard,  Howe, 
Jobu.son,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Patterson  of 
New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Ross,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Van 
Winkle,  Viekers,  AYilliams,  Wilson  and  Yates — 38. 

Nays — Messrs.  Anthony,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fowler,  Grimes,  McCreery,  Patterson 
of  Tennessee,  Trumbull,  and  Willey — lU. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Bayard,  Frelinghuysen,  Nye,  Saulsbuiy,  Sprague  and  Wade — 6. 

So  the  order,  with  the  pending  amendment,  was  laid  on  the  table. 
The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the  President,  you  will  proceed 
with  the  defence. 

William  T.  Sherman's  examination  continued. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Question.  After  the  restoration  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  the  War  Office  upon  the 
vote  of  the  Senate,  did  you  form  an  opinion  as  to  vrhether  the  good  of  the  ser- 
vice required  another  man  in  that  office  than  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

]\Ir.  Manager  Butler.  Stay  a  moment.  We  object.  Will  you  reduce  the 
question  to  writing? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  will  please  reduce  the 
question  to  writing. 

Mr.  StaniTERY.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  do  so,  though  I  can  hardly  be  called 
to  do  so  at  tlie  request  of  the  learned  manager.  I  made  a  similar  request  to  him 
more  than  once,  and  it  was  never  complied  with. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  requires  that  it  be  done. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  beg  a  thousand  pardon?.     Whenever  it  was  intimated 
.  by  the  Chief  Justice  it  was  done.     It  is  not  a  matter  of  kindness  ;  it  is  a  matter 
of  rule. 

Mr.  Stanbbry.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  my  impression  was  that  that  rule  aj)plied 
to  a  question  put  by  a  senator,  not  to  the  questions  of  counsel.  Otherwise  we 
should  never  get  through.  It  is  a  question  put  by  a  senator  that  must  be  in 
writing.    I  may  be  mistaken,  however. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  rule. 

The  Secretary  read  Rule  15,  as  follows  : 

XV.  All  motions  made  by  the  parties  or  their  counsel  shall  be  addressed  to  the  presiding- 
officer,  and  if  he  or  any  senator  shall  require  it,  they  shall  be  conunitted  to  writing  and  read 
at  the  Secretary's  table. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  their  question  to  writing. 
The  question  was  reduced  to  writing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
counsel  for  the  President. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Question.  After  the  restoration  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  office  did  you  form  an  opinion  whether 
the  good  of  the  service  required  a  Secretary  of  War  other  than  Mr.  Stanton ;  and  if  so,  did  you 
communicate  that  opinion  to  the  President  7 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  we  desire  to  state  very 
briefly  to  the  Senate  the  ground  upon  which  we  object  to  this  question.  It  is 
that  matters  of  opinion  are  never  admissible  in  judicial  proceedings,  but  in  cer- 
tain exceptional  cases,  cases  involving  professional  skill,  &c. ;  it  is  not  ueces- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  499 

sary  that  I  shoulvl  enumerate  them.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  for  a  momeut 
that  there  is  a  member  of  the  Seuate  who  can  entertain  the  opiiiiou  that  a 
question  of  the  kind  now  presented  is  competent  under  any  possible  circvuii- 
stauces  in  any  tribunal  of  justice.  It  must  occur  to  semitors  that  the  ordinary 
tests  of  truth  cannot  be  applied  to  it  at  all ;  and  in  saying  that,  my  remark  has 
no  relation  at  all  to  the  truthfulness  or  veracity  of  the  witness.  There  is  noth- 
ing upon  which  the  Senate  could  pronounce  any  judgment  whatever.  Are  they 
to  decide  a  question  upon  the  opinions  of  forty  or  forty  thousand  men  what 
might  be  for  the  good  of  the  service  ?  The  question  involved  here  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  laws  of  the  land.  It  is  a  question  of  fact  that  is  to  be  dealt  with 
by  witnesses  ;  and  it  is  a  question  of  law  and  fact  that  is  to  be  dealt  with  by 
the  Senate.  » 

Now,  this  matter  of  opinion  may  just  as  well  be  extended  one  step  further, 
if  it  is  to  be  allowed  at  all.  After  giving  his  opinion  of  what  might  be  requi- 
site to  the  public  service,  the  next  thing  in  order  would  be  the  witness's  opinion 
as  to  the  obligations  of  the  law,  the  restrictions  of  the  law,  the  prohibitions  of 
the  law.  We  cannot  suppose  that  the  Senate  will  entertain  such  a  question  for 
a  moment.  It  must  occur  to  the  Senate  that  by  adopting  such  a  rule  as  this  it 
is  impossible  to  see  the  limit  of  the  inquiry  or  the  end  of  the  investigation. 
If  it  be  competent  for  this  witness  to  deliver  this  opinion,  it  is  equally  compe- 
tent for  forty  thousand  other  men  in  this  country  to  deliver  their  opinions  to  the 
Senate  ;  and  then,  when  is  the  inquiry  to  end  ?  We  object  to  it  as  utterly 
incompetent. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  if  ever  there  was  a  case 
involving  a  question  of  intention,  a  question  of  conduct,  a  question  as  to  acts 
which  might  be  criminal  oi-  might  be  indiiferent  according  to  the  intent  of  the 
party  who  committed  them,  this  is  one  of  that  class.  It  is  upon  that  question 
of  intent  (which  the  gentleman  know  is  vital  to  their  case,  which  they  know 
as  well  as  we  know  they  must  make  out  by  some  proof  or  nther)  that  a 
great  deal  of  their  testimony  has  been  offered,  whether  successfully  or  not  I 
leave  the  Senate  to  determine ;  but  with  that  view  much  of  their  testimony  has 
been  offered  and  has  been  insisted  upon.  That  is,  it  has  been  to  show  with 
what  intent  did  the  President  remove  Mr.  Stanton.  They  say  the  intent  was 
against  the  public  good,  in  the  way  of  usurpation,  to  get  possession  of  that  War 
Office  and  drive  out  a  meritorious  officer,  and  put  a  tool,  or,  as  they  say,  in  one 
of  their  statements,  a  slave,  in  his  place. 

Upon  that  question  of  conduct,  senators,  what  now  do  we  propose  to  offer  to 
you  i*  That  the  second  officer  of  the  army — and  we  do  not  propose  to  stop  with 
him — that  this  high  officer  of  the  army,  seeing  the  complication  and  difficulty 
in  which  that  office  was,  by  the  restoration  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  it,  formed  the 
opinion  himself  that  for  the  good  of  the  service  Mr.  Stanton  ought  to  go  out  and 
some  one  else  take  the  place.  Who  could  be  a  better  judge  of  the  good  of  the 
service  than  the  distinguished  officer  who  is  now  about  to  speak  1 

But  the  gentlemen  say  what  are  his  opinions  more  than  another  man's  opinions, 
if  they  are  merely  given  as  abstract  opinions  'i  We  do  not  intend  to  use  them 
as  abstract  opinions.  The  gentlemen  did  not  read  the  whole  question.  It  is  not 
merely  what  opinion  had  you.  General  Sherman;  but  having  formed  that  opinion, 
did  you  comnmnicate  it  to  the  President,  that  the  good  of  tin;  service  required 
Mr.  Stanton  to  leave  that  department  ;  and  that  in  your  judgment,  acting  for 
the  good  of  the  service,  some  other  man  oiaght  to  be  there  1 

This  is  no  declaration  of  the  President  we  are  upon  now.  This  is  a  commu- 
nication made  to  him  to  regulate  his  conduct,  to  justify  him  ;  indeed,  to  call 
upon  him  to  look  to  the  good  of  the  service,  and  to  be  rid,  if  possible,  in  some 
way,  of  that  unpleasant  complication.  Any  one  can  see  there  was  a  complica- 
tion there  that  must,  in  some  way  or  other,  be  got  rid  of;  for  look  at  what  the 
managers  have  put  in  evidence  !     It  appears  by  Mr.  Stanton's  own  statement, 


500  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT, 

that  from  the  12th  of  August,  1867,  j\Ir.  Stanton  had  never  seon  the  President, 
has  never  entered  the  Executive  Mansion,  lias  never  sat  at  that  board  wliere 
the  President's  legal  advisers,  the  heads  of  departmcnls,  are  bound  to  be  under 
the  Constitution, 

Will  they  say  that  the  relations  between  him  and  the  President  had  got  to 
that  pitcli  that  Mr,  Stanton  was  uinvilling  to  go  there  lest  he  might  not  be 
admitted  ?  He  never  made  that  attempt ;  but  that  is  not  all  :  Mr.  Stanton  says 
delilierately,  on  the  4th  of  March,  in  his  communication  to  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, Avhen  he  sent  the  correspondence  between  the  President  and  Gen- 
eral Grant :  "  I  have  not  only  not  seen  the  President,  but  I  have  had  no  offi- 
cial communication  with  the  President  since  the  12th  of  August,  1867  "  How- 
is  the  army  to  get  along  with  that  sort  of  thing  1  How  is  the  service  to  be 
benefited  in  that  way?  Certainly  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  service  that  the 
President  should  have  there  some  one  with  whom  he  can  advise  as  to  what  is  to 
be  done  in  regard  to  tlie  army. 

But  what  has  the  Secretary  of  War  become  ?  One  of  two  things  is  inevi- 
table :  he  is  running  the  War  Depaitment  without  any  advice  or  consultation  with 
the  President,  or  he  is  doing  nothing.  Ought  that  to  be  the  position  of  a  Sec- 
retary of  War?  The  President  could  not  get  out  of  that  difficulty.  He  might 
have  got  out  of  it,  perhaps,  by  humbling  himself  before  Mr,  Stanton,  by  send- 
ing him  a  note  of  apology  that  he  had  ever  suspended  him.  By  humbling  him- 
self to  his  subordinate  it  might  have  been  that  Mr.  Stanton  would  have 
forgiven  him.     Would  you  ask  him  to  do  that,  senators] 

Now,  when  you  are  looking  to  motives,  when  you  consider  the  provocations 
that  the  President  has  had,  when  beyond  that  you  see  the  necessities  of  the  public 
service  placed  in  that  situation  that  no  longer  can  there  be  any  communication 
between  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  President,  is  it  fit  that  the  public  service 
should  be  carried  on  in  that  way,  just  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  War  to  hold 
on  to  his  officb  and  become  a  mere  loctim  tcnens  ?  Then,  when. you  are  consid- 
ering the  conduct,  the  intentions,  and  the  matter  that  is  in  the  mind  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  get  rid  of  Stanton — undoubtedly  he  had  that  matter  in  his  mind — when 
you  find  that  he  has  been  advised,  not  only  as  we  propose  to  prove,  by  General 
Sherman  himself,  that  the  good  of  the  service  requireil  that  that  difficulty  should 
be  ended,  but  that  General  Sherman,  as  I  shall  undertake  to  prove,  communicated 
also  the  opinion  of  General  Grant  to  the  very  same  point,  and  when,  as  I  tell 
you,  Ave  shall  follow  it  up  by  the  agreement  of  these  two  distinguished  generals 
to  go  to  Mr.  Stanton  and  to  tell  him  that,' for  the  good  of  the  service,  he  ought 
to  resign,  as  he  had  intimated  when  the  President  first  suspended  him  that  he 
would  resign,  the  Senate  being  here  to  take  care  that  the  President  got  no 
improper  man  there — now,  when  you  are  trying  the  President  for  his  intentions, 
whether  he  acted  in  good  faith  or  had  faith,  senators,  will  you  shut  out  from  him 
the  advice  that  he  received  from  these  two  distinguished  officers,  and  will  you 
allow  the  managers  still  to  say  that  he  acted  without  advice,  that  he  acted  for 
the  very  purpose  of  removing  a  faithful  officer  and  getting  in  his  place  some 
tool  or  slave  of  his  ■?  When  it  was  said  to  him  that  there  should  be  a  change 
for  the  benefit  of  the  service,  can  yon  not  extend  to  him  so  much  charity  as  to 
believe  that  he  would  he  impressed  by  the  opinions  of  these  two  distinguished 
generals?  They  say  they  did  not  intend  to  make  themselves  parties  to  the 
controversy,  but  tln.*y  saw,  as  things  stood  there,  that  either  the  President  must 
go  out  or  Mr.  Stanton.  That  was  the  character  of  it.  It  is  with  this  view  that 
we  offer  this  testimony,  and  1  trust  this  is  not  to  be  ruled  out. 

Mr.  Manager  BiiTLKU.  Mr.  President,  Senators,  I  fin-esaw  if  we  did  not 
remain  long  enough  in  session,  which  tin;  late  hour  of  the  night  on  Saturday 
warned  us  not  to  do,  to  finish  this  witness,  so  that  oidy  tin;  usual  rule  of  recall- 
ing would  be  enforced,  that  the  struggle  would  be  renewed  again  in  some  form 
to-day  to  get  in  the  declarations  of  the  President  or  declarations  to  the  President ; 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  501 

and  now  the  proposition  is  to  ask  General  Sherman  whether  he  did  not  form 
an  opinion  that  it  was  necessary  that  Mr.  Stanton  shonld  be  removed. 

Mr.  Stanbeuy.  I  did  not  say  "removed." 

Mr.  IManager  Butler,  (to  the  Secretary.)  Allow  me  to  have  the  question.  I 
believe  I  am  correct.     (Obtaining  the  question.)    What  is  it? 

Whether  the  good  of  the  service  required  a  Secretary  of  War  other  than  Mr.  Stauton,  and 
if  so,  did  you  not  communicate  that  opinion  to  the  President. 

Of  course  there  could  not  be  any  other  Secretary  of  War  but  i\[r.  Stanton, 
unless  Mr.  Stanton  resigned  or  was  removed.  It  would  be  a  good  deal  more  to 
the  purpose  to  ask  him  whether  he  communicated  that  opinion  to  Mr.  Stanton, 
if  it  may  be  put  in  at  all,  because  Mr.  Stanton  could  have  resigned. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  will  follow  it  up  with  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Quousque  tandem  abutere  nostra  2>aticntia  ?  I  am  not 
able  to  say  to  what^xtent  you  will  go  in  ofters  ;  but  I  am  very  glad  we  are  told 
that  is  to  be  done  and  these  tentative  experiments  are  to  go  on,  for  what  pur- 
pose, senators,  you  will  judge;  certainly  for  no  legal  purpose.  Now,  it  is  said 
that  it  is  necessary  to  put  this  in,  and  the  argument  is  pressed  that  was  used  on 
Saturday,  "We  must  show  that  or  we  cannot  defend  the  President."  Well,  if 
you  cannot  defend  the  President  without  another  breach  of  the  law  for  his 
breach  of  the  law,  I  do  not  see  any  necessity  for  his  being  defended.  You  are 
breaking  the  law  to  defend  him,  because  you  are  putting  in  testimony  that  has 
no  relevancy,  no  pertinency,  no  competency  tmder  the  law.  After  you  have  let 
this  come  in,  senators,  if  you  can  do  so,  will  you  allow  me  to  ask  General 
Sherman  whether  he  did  not  come  to  an  equally  firm  opinion  that  it  was  for  the 
good  of  the  service,  or  for  the  good  of  the  country,  that  Johnson  should  be 
removed?  The  learned  Attorney  General  says  he  came  to  the  opinion  that  this 
complication,  as  he  called  it,  shoitld  be  broken  up.  I  think  most  of  us  came  to 
that  conclusion — but  how?  General  Sherman  might  think  it  was  by  removing 
Mr.  Stanton ;  General  Grant  might  think  it  was  by  removing  Johnson.  The 
House  of  Representatives  have  thought  that  the  complication  could  be  broken 
up  by  the  removal  of  Johnson.  Are  you  going  to  put  in  General  Sherman's 
opinion  to  counterbalance  the  weight  of  the  opinion  of  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives ? 

Again,  will  the  next  question  be  put  to  General  Sherman  whether,  if  he 
thought  it  was  better  to  remove  Stanton  and  put  in  Thomas,  that  would  be  a 
good  change  for  the  good  of  the  service ;  or  shall  we  be  allowed  on  another 
article  to  show  that  General  Sherman  did  not  think  it  was  a  good  plan  to  put 
in  Thomas,,  and  so  convict  the  President  of  a  wrong  intent,  because  General 
Sherman  thought  Thomas  was  a  bad  man,  and,  therefore,  the  President  is  guilty 
if  he  put  him  in?  Because  General  Sherman  thought  that  Mr.  Stanton  Avas  a 
bad  man,  therefore  it  was  for  the  good  of  the  service  to  put  Stanton  out,  and 
therefore  the  President  is  innocent  in  putting  him  out — that  seems  to  be  the 
proposition.  Can  we  go  into  this  region  of  opinion  ?  I  speak  Avholly  Avithout 
reference  to  the  witness.  I  am  now  speaking  wholly  upon  the  general  princi- 
ple of  opinions  of  men.  That  will  send  us  into  another  region  of  inquiry  which 
we  do  not  want  to  go  into.  If  this  testimony  comes  in,  we  shall  then  have  to 
ask  General  Sherma;i  what  were  your  relations  with  Mr.  Stanton  ?  Have  you 
bad  a  quarrel  with  him?  Did  you  not  think  it  would  be  better  for  the  service 
if  you  could  get  rid  of  your  enemy  ?  Was  not  that  the  thing?  Was  there  not 
an  unfortunate  difficulty  between  you?  If  you  allow  this  opinion  to  go  in,  you 
cannot  prevent  our  going  into  the  various  considerations  which  would  make 
this  opinion  of  little  value.  It  is  that  kind  of  inquiry  into  which  I  have  no 
desire  to  enter,  and  I  pray  this  Senate  not  to  enter,  for  the  good  of  the  country 
and  for  the  integrity  of  the  law.  That  is  the  next  question  Ave  shall  have  to 
ask — Avhat  Avere  the  grounds  of  your  opinion  ? 

Again,  we  shall  have  to  go  further.    We  shall  have  to  call  as  many  men  on  the 


502  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

other  side  as  Ave  can.  If  General  Sherman  is  put  in  liere  as  an  expert,  we  shall 
have  to  call  Cieneral  Sheridan  and  General  Thomas — I  mean  George  H.  Thomas 
always — and  General  Meade,  and  other  men  of  equal  experience,  to  say  whether 
upon  the  whole  they  did  not  think  it  was  for  the  best  to  keep  Mr.  Stanton  in, 
and  whether  they  comnuuiieated  their  o]nnio7is  to  the  President  and  to  ill". 
Stanton.  But  I  think  nothing  can  more  clearly  demonstrate  the  fVict  that  this 
cannot  be  evidence.  If  it  is  put  on  the  ground  that  he  is  an  expert  as  an  army 
officer,  then  we  have  army  officers,  if  not  quite  as  expert,  yet  as  much  experts 
in  the  eye  of  the  law  as  he  is,  and  the  struggle  will  be  hure  on  which  side  would 
be  the  most  of  them. 

There  is  another  purpose  on  which  this  is  put  in.  It  is  said  it  is  put  in  to 
show  that  the  President  had  not  a  wrong  intent.  There  has  been  a  great  deal 
said  here  about  intent  which,  I  think,  deserves  a  Avord  of  comment,  as  though 
the  intent  has  got  to  be  proved  by  somebody  that  the  Pr^ident  told  he  had  a 
wrong  intent.  That  seems  to  be  the  proposition  as  put  forward,  that  you  have 
to  bring  some  direct  proof,  some  man  who  heard  the  President  say  he  had  a  bad 
intent,  or  something  equivalent  to  that.  The  question  before  you  is,  did  Mr. 
Johnson  break  the  hiw  of  the  land  when  he  removed  Mr.  Stanton?  If  he  did 
break  the  law  of  the  land  when  he  removed  Mr.  Stanton,  what  then?  Then 
ihe  lav/  supplies  the  intent,  and  says  that  no  man  can  do  wrong  intending  right. 
That  illustrates  this  question  in  another  view;  because,  suppose  it  is  for  the  good 
of  the  service  and  it  is  demonstrated  that  it  is  best  for  the  good  of  the  service 
that  Mr.  Stanton  should  be  put  out,  does  that  justify  the  President  in  breaking 
the  law  of  the  land  to  get  him  out  ?  Does  that  aid  his  intent  ?  Shall  you  do 
evil  that  good  may  come  ?  Can  you  do  that  under  any  statfe  of  circumstances  1 
The  question  is  not  whether  it  was  best  to  have  Mr.  Stanton  out.  Upon  that 
question  senators  may  be  divided  in  opinion.  There  may  be  many  men,  for 
aught  I  know  or  aught  I  care,  there  may  be  senators  who  think  that  it  would 
be  best  to  have  Stanton  out ;  but  that  is  not  the  question  at  all.  Admit  it ;  the 
question  is,  is  it  best  to  break  the  law  of  the  land  by  the  chief  executive  officer 
in  order  to  get  him  out  I  Is  it  best  to  strain  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  in 
order  to  get  him  out?  However  much  he  may  desire  to  do  it,  the  fact  that  the 
Secretary  is  a  bad  officer  does  not  give  the  President  a  right  to  do  an  illegal 
thing  to  gf't  him  out.  See  where  you  are  coming,  senators.  It  is  this,  that  it 
is  a  justiHcation  for  the  President  or  any  other  executive  officer  to  break  the  law 
of  the  land  if  he  can  show  that  he  did  v/liat  he  thought  was  a  good  thing  by 
doing  it. 

I  am  aware  that  the  executive  office,  if  I  go  to  history,  has  been  carried  on  a 
.little  upon  that  idea.  J^et  me  illustrate:  you  senators  and  house  of  represent- 
atives, agreeing  together  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  passed  a  law  that 
no  man  should  hold  office  in  the  southern  States  that  could  not  take  the  oath  of 
loyalty;  and  I  am  aware  that  the  President  of  the  United  States — he  ought  to 
have  been  impeached  for  it — boldly  put  men  into  office  who  could  not  take  that 
oath  in  the  south,  and  paid  them  their  salaries,  and  justified  it  before  the  Senate 
and  the  House  of  Ilepresentatives  on  the  ground  that  h<;  thought  he  was  doing 
the  best  for  the  servic<!  to  do  it — a  breach  of  the  law  which,  if  the  House  and 
the  countiy  hail  time  to  f(dlow  hitn  in  the  innumerabh!  things  he  has  done, 
would  and  ought  to  have  been  presented  as  ground  for  impeachment.  It  is  one 
of  his  crimes  And  now  he  comes  here  and  before  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  says,  "  Wcdl,  1  got  advice  that  such  a  man  was  not  a  good  officei",  and, 
therefore,  1  broke  the  law  to  put  hiiu  out,  and  that  is  my  excuse."  Is  it  an 
excuse  ? 

But  one  other  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  attcMition,  because  you  have 
heard  it  here  over  an(i  over  again,  is  this  :  it  is  said  that  Mr.  Stanton  has  not 
had  a  seat  in  that  board,  that  cabinet  council,  since  the  12th  of  August  last. 
Whose  fault  was  that  ?     He  attended  every  meeting  up  to  within  a  Aveek  of  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  603 

12tli  of  August.  He  did  his  duty  up  to  within  a  week  of  the  12th  of  August. 
He  was  notified  that  suspension  was  coming.  He  was  then  suspended  until  the 
13th  of  January ;  and  when  he  came  back  into  the  office  it  was  not  for  the 
President  to  humble  himself,  but  it  was  for  him  to  notify  him  as  the  head  of  a 
department  to  come  and  take  his  scat  if  he  so  desired  ;  but  that  notice  never 
came.  It  was  not  for  him  to  thrust  himself  upon  the  President,  but  it  was  for 
him  to  go  when  he  understood  his  presence  would  be  agreeable. 

But  that  is  put  forward  here  as  though  this  government  could  not  go  on  without 
a  cabinet  board  ;  and  the  learned  counsel  has  just  told  us  that  it  is  a  constitu- 
tional board.  Upon  that  I  want  to  take  issue,  once  for  all,  senators ;  it  is  an 
unconstitutional  board.  There  is  not  one  word  in  the  Constitution  about  a 
cabinet  or  a  board.  Jeremy  Bentham  said,  years  ago,  that  a  board  was  always  a 
shield,  and  there  has  been  an  attempt  in  some  of  the  later  Presidents  to  get  these 
boards  around  them  to  shield  them  in  their  acts  as  a  board.  The  Constitution  says 
that  the  principal  officers  of  the  departments  may  be  called  upon  in  their  respective 
offices,  in  regard  to  their  duties,  to  give  opinions  in  writing  to  the  President;  and 
the  earlier  Presidents  called  upon  their  cabinet  officers  for  opinions  in  writing. 
I  have  on  my  table  here  an  opinion  that  Thomas  Jefferson  gave  to  Washington, 
about  his  right  to  appoint  embassadors,  in  writing.  They  are  not  to  be  a  board, 
not  to  sit  down  and  consult,  nor  to  have  cabinet  counsels.  That  is  an  assumption 
of  executive  power  that  has  grown  up  little  by  little  from  the  cabinets  of  the  Old 
'World.  These  heads  of  departments  were  given  to  the  President  as  aids,  and 
not  as  a  shield,  and  he  now  will  attempt  to  shield  himself,  perhaps,  under  their 
advice  and  under  their  action.  It  is  not  mere  form.  The  opinion  in  writing 
was  required  by  the  Constitution — why  ?  Because  the  framers  of  the  Consti- 
tution well  knew  that  there  were  cabinet  councils,  and  from  the  initials  of  a 
cabinet  coimcil  in  England  came  that  celebrated  word  "  cabal,"  which  has  been 
the  synonym  of  all  that  Avas  vile  in  political  combinations  from  that  day  to  this ; 
and  knowing  that,  it  would  seem  almost  with  prescience  that  they  required 
not  that  there  should  be  verbal  communications  semi-weekly  by  which  things 
might  be  arranged  and  by  which  a  secret  conclave  might  be  held,  but  that 
there  shuuld  be  what?  That  there  should  be  written  opinions  asked  and 
given,  so  that  they  might  be  known  of  all  men  ;  so  that  the  President  could 
not  say,  "  Why,  I  got  this  advice  from  my  cabinet  counsellor,"  unless  he 
showed  it  in  writing,  and  so  that  the  cabinet  counsellor  should  not  say 
that  he  fiiiled  to  give  this  advice,  because  the  President  might  show  it  in 
writing.  Think  of  this  cabinet  and  what  it  has  got  to  be !  Picture  to  your- 
selves, senators,  President  Johnson  and  Lorenzo  Thomas  in  cabinet  consultation 
to  shield  the  President!  If  Lorenzo  Thomas  was  rightly  appointed,  then  of 
course  he  can  go  into  cabinet  consultation.  If  they  have  a  right  to  put  in  con- 
sultation one  cabinet  officer  they  have  a  right  to  put  in  another.  If  they  have 
a  right  to  put  in  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General,  who,  by  the  way,  is  not 
by  the  law  a  cabinet  officer  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  said  a  head  of  a  depart- 
ment is — if  they  have  a  right  to  put  in  the  opinion  of  one  head  of  a  department 
they  have  a  right  to  put  in  another ;  if  a  permanent,  then  a  tempoi-ary  cabinet 
officer  ;  if  a  temporary  head  of  a  department,  then  an  ad  interim  one.  I  find 
no  dereliction  of  duty  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Stanton  in  this  ;  nothing  showing  that 
the  War  Department  could  not  go  on.  Let  them  show  that  the  President  has 
ever  done  according  to  the  Constitution,  asked  Mr.  Stanton  any  opinion  in 
writing  as  to  the  duties  of  his  department,  or  that  he  has  ever  sent  an  order  to 
him  which  he  disobeyed  ;  and  that  will  be  pertinent ;  that  will  show  a  reason  ; 
but  I  pray  the  Senate  not  to  let  us  go  into  the  region  of  opinion 

I  have  taken  this  much  time,  senators,  because  I  think  we  save  time  by  taking 
it,  if  we  come  to  the  right  decision  to-day  to  keep  out  this  range  of  o])inion. 
This  case  is  to  be  tried  by  your  opinion ;  not  upon  your  opinion  as  to  whether 
Stanton  is  a  good  or  a  bad  officer,  but  upon  the  opinion  that,  whether  good  or 


504  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

bad,  tlie  President  broke  the  law  in  removing  him,  and  must  take  the  conse- 
quences of  that  breach  of  the  law.  It  is  said  that  he  broke  it  in  order  to  get 
into  court.  I  agree  that  if  his  counsel  are  correct  he  is  in  court,  and  in  a  court 
where  he  will  have  the  full  benefit  of  having  the  law  settled  forever. 

Mr.  EvARTS  rose. 

Mr.  CoNKLi.NG.  Before  the  counsel  proceeds  I  beg  to  submit  a  question,  which 
I  send  to  the  desk  in  writing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  propounded  by  the  senator  from  New 
York  will  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Question.  Do  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  offer  at  this  point  to  show  by  the  witness  that 
he  advised  the  President  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  in  the  manner  adopted  by  the  President,  or 
merely  that  he  advised  the  President  to  nominate  for  the  action  of  the  Senate  some  person 
other  than  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

Mr.  Stanbeky.  We  do  not  propose  either.  We  propose  simply  to  show  that  he 
gave  his  opinion  that  for  the  good  of  the  service  somebody  else  ought  to  be  there. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Without  regard  to  the  mode? 

Mr.  Stanhery.  We  do  not  propose  to  show  that  he  advised  him  about  the 
mode  of  removal ;  but  we  propose  to  show  this  opinion  communicated  to  the 
President. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  I  do  not  propose,  upon  this 
question  of  evidence,  to  discuss  the  constitutional  relations  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  his  cabinet,  nor  to  anticipate  in  tlie  least  the  consideration 
of  the  merits  of  this  case,  as  they  shall  finally  be  the  subject  of  discussion. 
If  the  accusations  against  the  President  of  the  United  States,  uj)on  which  he  is 
on  trial  here,  and  judgment  upon  which  must  result  in  his  deposition  from  his 
great  office  and  a  call  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  choose  his  suc- 
cessor, turn  wholly  upon  the  mere  question  of  whether  the  President  has  been 
guilty  of  a  formal  violation  of  a  statute  law,  which  might  subject  him  to  a  six 
cents'  fine  or  a  ten  days'  imprisonment,  if  he  were  indicted  for  it — if  that  is  the 
measure  and  the  strength  (as,  Avhen  it  comes  to  question  of  evidence,  is  con- 
stantly urged  upon  you)  of  this  accusation,  I  think  that  tlie  honorable  manager, 
who  so  eloquently  and  warmly  pressed  iipon  you  the  consideration  that  Warren 
Hastings's  trial  was  nothing  to  this,  was  a  little  out,  of  place.  If  they  will 
mtike  it  just  as  it  would  be  if  the  President  had  been  indicted  under  the  civil- 
tenure  act,  when  he  could  have  been  found  guilty  or  innocent  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  act,  and  then  the  punishment  could  have  been  made  appro- 
priate to  the  circurnstiuices  of  its  actual  formal  technical  infraction,  we  could 
understand  that  trial ;  and  that  is  open  to  the  House  of  Representatives  or  to 
any  informer  at  any  time.  On  the  contrary,  through  hours  and  pages  of  elo- 
quence, the  mere  act  and  fact  of  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  is  made  the  cir- 
cumstance or  coriius  delicti  upon  which,  in  respect  to  its  motives,  its  purposes, 
its  tendencies,  its  results,  the  "  high  crime,"  in  the  constitutional  sense  of  that 
term,  which  would  call  for  a  removal  from  office  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  by 
reason  of  some  grave  public  interest  being  injured,  is  made  the  topic  of  argu- 
ment and  of  proof. 

Now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  you  cannot  fail  to  see  that  General 
Sherman  is  not  called  here  as  an  expert  to  give  an  ojiiuion  whether  Mr.  Stanton 
is  R  good  Secretary  of  War  or  not.  He  is  not  called  here  as  an  expert  to  assist 
your  judgment  in  determining  whether  or  no  it  was  for  the  public  interest  that 
Mr.  Stanton  should  be  removed,  in  the  sense  of  determining  whether  this  form 
of  removal  was  legal  or  not.  He  is  introduced  here  as  the  second  in  command 
over  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  aiul  to  show  an  oj)inion  on  his  part,  a  as 
military  man  and  in  that  position,  that  the  military  service  required  for  its 
proper  conduct  that  a  Secretary  should  take  tlui  place  of  Mr.  Stanton  whose 
relations  to  that  service  and  to  the  Commander-in-Chief  were  not  such  as  those 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  505 

of  Ml*.  Stanton  were,  that  that  opinion  was  cornmnnicated  to  tlie  President. 
We  shall  enlarge  the  area  by  showing  that  it  was  shaved  iu  by  other  competent 
military  authority. 

And,  now,  if  a  President  of  the  United  States,  when  broiiglit  under  trial 
before  a  court  of  impeachment  upon  impeachment,  is  not  at  liberty  in  his  defence 
to  show  that  the  acts  which  are  brought  in  question  as  against  the  public 
interest  and  with  bad  motives,  and  to  obstruct  laws,  and  to  disturb  the  public 
peace,  acts  wantonly  done,  recklessly  done,  violently  done,  were  proper  and 
necessary  iu  the  judgment  of  those  most  competent  to  think,  most  competent 
to  advise,  most  responsible  to  the  country  in  every  sense  for  their  opinions  and 
their  advice,  what  can  he  show  ?  Is  it  not  proper  for  him  to  prove  that,  fur- 
nished with  those  opinions  and  supported  by  those  opinions,  (whether,  in  fact, 
which  is  yet  to  be  determined,  he  adopted  a  mode  that  was  unjustifiable  or  not; 
and  whether  you  shall  adjudge  the  mode  to  be  criminal  or  not,  is  not  now 
important,)  he  acted  in  such  a  manner  that  the  motives  and  the  objects  which 
be  had  in  view  were  of  the  public  service,  and  for  the  public  service,  and  based 
upon  the  intelligent  and  responsible  opinion  and  advice  of  those  in  whom  the 
service  and  the  community  generally  had,  and  upon  the  best  foundations,  the 
most  abiding  confidence. 

Now,  senators,  reflect-;  you  are  taking  part  in  a  solemn  transaction  which  is 
to  effect,  iu  your  unfavorable  judgment,  a  removal  of  the  Chief  ^Magistrate  of 
the  nation  for  some  offence  that  he  has  committed  against  the  public  welfare 
with  bad  motives  and  for  an  improper  purpose ;  and  we  offer  to  show  you  that 
upon  consultations  and  deliberations  and  advice  from  those  wholly  unconnected 
with  any  matters  of  personal  controversy  and  any  matters  of  political  contro- 
versy, and  occupying  solely  the  position  of  duty  and  responsibility  in  the  mili- 
tary service  of  the  country,  he  acted  and  desired  to  accomplish  this  change. 
We  cannot  prove  everything  in  a  breath  ;  nor  is  it  a  criticism  on  testimony 
justly  to  exclude  it,  that  it  does  not  in  itself  prove  all ;  but  if  it  shall  be  followed, 
as  it  will  be,  by  evidence  of  equal  authority  and  weight  and  by  efforts  of  the 
President,  or  authority  to  make  efforts  given  by  the  President  to  secure  a 
change  in  the  control  of  this  office  which  the  military  service  of  the  country 
thus  demanded,  we  shall  have  shoAvn  you  by  an  absolute  negative  that  this 
intention,  this  motive,  this  public  injury,  so  vehemently,  so  profusely  imputed 
in  the  course  of  the  arguments,  so  definitely  charged  in  the  articles,  had  no 
foundation  whatever. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  after  the  very  pertinent 
question  that  was  propounded  by  one  of  the  senators  to  the  counsel  for  the  Pres- 
ident had  been  put,  nothing  more  would  have  been  said  by  the  managers  but 
for  the  argument  that  has  since  been  interposed.  The  suggestion  made  by  the 
honorable  senator  shows  the  utter  incompetency  and  absurdity  of  the  proposi- 
tion that  is  presented  here  now :  that  was  whether  you  proposed  to  ask  of  the 
witness  that  he  formed  the  opinion  and  expressed  it  to  the  Executive  that  he 
ought  to  remove  the  Secretary  of  War  in  the  mode  and  manner  that  he  did 
remove  him  or  attempt  to  remove  him.  Is  there  any  one  here  bold  enough  to 
say  that  if  he  had  formed  the  opinion  against  the  legality  of  the  proceeding  and 
bad  so  expressed  himself  to  the  President  it  would  be  competent  for  us  to  intro- 
duce any  such  matter  here  as  a  mere  matter  of  opinion  to  prove  intent  or  to 
prove  anything  else  against  the  President ; 

But,  apart  from  that,  the  reason  chiefly  why  I  rose  to  reply  to  the  utterances 
of  the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat  is  this  :  He  intimates  here  the 
extraordinary^  opinion  for  himself  that  the  trial  in  a  court  of  justice  of  a  beggar 
arrested  in  your  streets  for  a  crime  punishable  with  six  cents  of  fine  or,  perchance, 
five  hours'  imprisonment,  is  subject  to  a  very  different  rule  of  evidence  and  of 
administrative  justice  froui  that  which  prevails  and  applies  when  you  come  to 
prosecute  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  nation.     The  American  people  will  enter- 


506  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

tain  no  opinions  of  tliat  sort  ;  nor  will  tlioir  senators.  We  have  tlio  same  rule 
of  justice  and  the  same  rule  of  evidence  for  the  trial  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  for  the  trial  of  the  most  defenceless  and  the  weakest  of  all 
our  citizens 

Jfr.  EvARTS.  Will  the  honorable  manager  allow  me  to  say  that  the  only  illus- 
tration T  used  was  of  an  indictment  against  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  Union 
on  trial  before  a  police  court  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bixgham.  I  supposed  myself  that  when  the  gentleman  made 
use  of  the  remark  he  intended  certainly  to  have  the  Senate  understand  that 
there  was  a  different  rule  of  evidence  and  of  administrative  justice  in  the  prose- 
cution of  an  indictment  in  a  court  where  the  penalty  might  be  six  cents  from 
that  which  apfilied  in  the  prosecution  of  the  President  before  the  Senate. 

Mr.  EvAtrrs.  When  the  issues  are  different  the  evidence  will  be  different.  It 
does  not  depend  on  the  dignity  of  the  defendant. 

Jlr.  Manager  Bingham.  It  is  very  difficult  to  see  how  the  gentleman  can 
escape  from  the  position  which  he  has  assumed  here  before  the  Senate  by  mak- 
ing the  remark  that  he  supposed  the  President  to  be  prosecuted.  It  is  a  very 
grave  question  in  this  country  whether  the  President  can  be  prosecuted  in  the 
courts  of  the  United  States  for  an  indictable  offence  before  he  is  impeached.  It 
has  been  incorporated  in  your  Constitution  that  after  he  has  been  impeached 
and  removed  he  may  be  indicted  and  prosecuted  for  the  crime.  I  do  not,  how- 
ever, stop  to  argue  that  question  now.  I  do  not  care  who  is  prosecuted  upon 
an  indictment,  whether  the  President  or  a  beggar,  the  same  rule  of  evidence 
applies  to  each.  I  do  not  care  who  is  impeached,  whether  it  be  the  President 
of  the  United  States  or  the  lowest  civil  officer  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States  before  the  Senate,  the  same  rule  of  evidence  obtains,  and  the  common- 
law  maxim  applies  that  where  an  offence  is  charged  which  is  unlawful  in  itself, 
and  it  is  proved  to  have  been  committed,  (as  alleged  in  every  one  of  these 
articles,  and  established,  I  say,  by  the  proof  as  to  all  of  them,)  the  law  itself 
declares  that  the  intent  was  criminal,  and  it  is  for  the  accused  to  show  justifica- 
tion. That  is  the  language  of  the  books.  I  so  read  it  in  the  volume  lying 
before  me,  the  third  of  Greenleaf. 

I  do  not  stop  to  delay  the  Senate  by  reading  the  words  further  than  I  have 
recited  them,  that  where  the  act  is  unlawful  the  intent  is  established  by  the 
proof  of  the  fact  that  he  did  commit  the  unlawful  act.  As  I  intimated  before, 
that  being  the  rule  of  evidence  as  to  the  intent,  which  was  very  adroitly  sug- 
gested as  the  reason  for  asking  this  extraordinary  question,  this  kind  of  testi- 
mony could  be  of  no  avail  unless,  indeed,  we  were  to  have  the  opinion  of  the 
Lieutenant  General  as  to  the  legality  of  the  act. 

I  remarked  before — and  upon  that  remark  I  stand — that  the  question  of  the 
legality  of  the  President's  conduct  is  not  to  be  settled  by  the  opinions  of  any 
witness  called  at  this  bar;  it  is  to  be  settled  by  the  judgment  of  this  Senate; 
and  it  is  to  be  settled  by  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  to  the  exclusion  of  every 
other  tribunal  on  the  earth,  for  it  is  so  written  in  your  Constitution.  Intents 
arc  not  to  be  proved  in  any  conceivable  form  or  shape  by  the  opinions  of  any 
number  of  witnesses  about  the  legality  of  an  act.  The  law  and  the  judges  of 
the  law  will  determine  whether  the  act  was  unlawful ;  and  opinions,  though 
ever  so  often  formed  and  expressed  by  a  third  person,  cannot  maki'  an  unlawful 
act  a  legal  or  a  lawful  act,  and  cannot  get  rid  of  the  intention  which  the  law 
says  necessarily  follows  the  commission  of  an  unlawful  act. 

Well,  say  the  gentlemen  again,  the  President  was  taking  the  advice  of  hon- 
ored and  honorable  gentlemen  in  the  })ublic  service.  The  Constitution,  as  the 
Senate  well  know,  indicates  who  shall  be  the  President's  advisers  in  such  a 
case  as  this  of  the  removal  of  the  head  of  a  department.  That  Constitution 
expressly  declares  that  he  may  appoint,  and  thereby  necessarily  remove,  the 
present  incumbent  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.     The 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  507 

temire-ofK)ffice  act,  following  the  Constitution,  provided  further  that  he  may,  for 
sufficient  reasons  to  him  appearing,  suspend  the  incumbent  and  take  the  advice 
of  the  Senate,  laying  the  facts  before  the  Senate,  with  tlie  evidence  upon  which 
he  acted,  whether  the  suspension  should  be  made  ahsolnt(i.  The  President  did 
take  the  advice  of  the  Senate ;  he  did  suspend  this  officer  whose  removal  he 
undertakes  to  prove  now  by  individual  opinions  the  public  service  requires.  He 
sent  notice  of  that  suspension  to  the  Senate.  Tlie  Senate,  as  his  constitutional 
adviser,  acted  upon  it.  They  gave  him  notice  that  they  advised  him  not  to 
attempt  any  further  interference  with  the  Secretary  for  tlie  Department  of  War. 
They  gave  him  notice  that  under  the  law  he  could  not  go  a  step  farther.  He 
therefore  falls  back  upon  his  assumed  right,  and  undertakes  to  defy  the  Consti- 
tution, to  defy  the  teuure-of-office  act,  to  defy  the  Senate,  and  to  remove  the 
Secretary  of  War,  and  to  appoint  another  in  his  place  without  the  advice  and 
consent  of  anybody  except  such  as  he  chose  to  call  into  his  councils;  and  now 
he  undertakes  to  justify  by  having  them  swear  to  their  opinions.  We  protest 
against  it  in  the  name  of  the  Constitution  ;  we  protest  against  it  in  the  name  of 
the  laws  enacted  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution;  and  we  protest  against  it  in 
the  name  of  that  great  jieople  whom  we  this  day  represent,  and  whose  rights 
have  been  outrageously  betrayed,  and  are  now  being  audaciously  defied  before 
this  tribunal. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Question.  After  the  restoration  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  office,  did  you  form  an  opinion  whether 
thi'  fi^ood  of  the  service  required  a  Secretary  of  War  other  than  Mr.  Stanton  ;  and  if  so,  did 
you  communicate  that  opinion  to  the  President  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  CoNNESS  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered  ;  and  bein 
taken,  resulted — yeas  15,  nays  35 ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Hendricks, 
Johnson,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Eoss,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  and  Vickers — 15. 

Nays — Jlessrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Coukling-,  Conuess,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Davis,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Freliug^huysen,  Harlan,  Henderson,  Howard, 
Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Patterson  of 
New  Hampshire.  Ponieroy,  Kamsey,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  W'illey,  Williams, 
Wilson,  and  Yates — 35. 

Not  voting— Messrs.  Saulsbury,  Sprague,  Sumner,  and  Wade — 4. 

So  the  question  was  decided  to  be  inadmissible. 
Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  President,  I  send  to  the  Chair  a  question. 
The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Maryland. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Did  you  at  any  time,  and  when,  before  the  President  gave  the  order  for  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Stanton  as  Secretary  of  War,  advise  the  Presideuf  to  appoint  some  other  person  in  the  place 
of  Mr.  Stanton? 

Mr.  Manager  BuTi.ER.  To  that  we  have  the  honor  to  object  as  being  leading 
in  form,  and  not  only  in  form  bad,  but  being  covered  by  the  vote  just  taken. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  suggest,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  that  the  objection  of  a  question 
being  leading  in  form  cannot  be  made  when  it  is  put  by  a  member  of  the  court. 
I  have  never  understood  that  such  an  objection  could  be  made.  It  imputes  to 
the  court    the  idea  of  putting  words  into  the  witness's  mouth  to  lead  him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  know,  Mr.  President 

Mr.  Davis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  suggest  whether  the  managers  or  the  coun- 
sel for  the  defence  can  interpose  any  objection  to  a  question  made  by  a  member 
of  the  court  1 

^  The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  any  objection  to  the  put- 
ting of  a  question  by  a  member  of  the  court  must  come  from  the  court  itself. 


508  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Whenever  tliat  question  arises,  the  managers  wish  to 
he  heard  upon  it. 

Mr.  Ukake.  I  object  to  the  putting  of  the  question. 

The  CiiiHF  Justice.  The  only  mode  in  wliich  an  ohjcction  to  the  question  can 
be  decided  properly  is  to  rule  the  question  admissible  or  inadmissible,  and  that  is 
for  the  Senate.  The  question  of  the  senator  from  Maryland  has  been  proposed 
unquestionably  in  good  faith,  and  it  addresses  itstdf  to  the  witness  in  the  first 
instance,  and  it  is  for  the  Senate  to  determine  whether  it  shall  be  answered  by 
the  witness  or  not.  Senators,  the  question  is,  whether  the  question  propounded 
by  the  senator  from  Maryland  is  admissible? 

Mr.  Howe.  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  have  the  question  read  again.  I 
did  not  understand  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  propounded  to  the 
witness  by  the  senator  from  Maryland. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Question.  Did  you  at  any  time,  and  when,  before  the  President  gave  the  order  for  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stauton  as  Secretary  of  War,  advise  the  President  to  appoint  some  other 
person  than  Jlr.  Stanton  ? 

Mr.  Drake.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  IS,  nays 
32 — as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Bnckalcw,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Fessenden, 
Fowler,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross, 
Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  and  Vickers — Id. 

Navs. — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragiu, 
Davis,  Drake,  Ferry,  Freliufchuysen,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morp^an,  Morrill  of  Maim-, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampsliire,  Pomeroy,  IJauisey, 
Slierman,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Willey,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — '.i2. 

N(JT  VOTING. — Messrs.  Saulsbury,  Sprague,  Sumner,  and  Wade — 4. 

So  the  Senate  decided  the  question  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  have  nothing  further  to  ask  of  General  Sherman. 

]\Ir.  Manager  Bingham.  We  have  nothing  to  ask  of  General  Sherman. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  desires  to  ask  whether  the  counsel 
for  the  President  will  require  Genciral  Sherman  again  at  all  ] 

To  this  question  no  response  was  made  ;  but  Mr.  Stanbery  and  Mr.  Manager 
Butler  each  engaged  in  conversation  with  the  witness. 

Mr.  Cole,  (at  two  o'clock  and  fifteen  minutes  p.  m.)  I  move  that  the  Senate 
take  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes. 

'I'he  rnoiion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Chief  Justice  resumed  the  chair  at  half 
past  two  o'clock,  and  called  the  Senate  to  order. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  counsel  for  the  President,  please  proceed 
with  your  evidence. 

R.  J.  Meigs  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Stan  he rv  : 
Q    What  office  do  you  hold  ? 

A.   I  am  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 
Q.  Were  you  clerk  oC  that  court  in  February  last? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  with  y.^u  the  ailiilavit  and  warrant  under  which  Lorenzo 
Thomas  was  arrested? 

A.  1  have.     (Producing  some  pajjcrs.) 

Q    Are  these  the  original  papers? 

A.   'JMie  original  papers. 

Q.  Did  vou  affix  the  seal  of  the  court  to  the  warrant  ? 

A.  I  did' 

Q.  On  what  day  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  509 

A    On  the  22d  of  February  last. 

Q.  At  what  hour  of  the  day  ? 

A.  It  was  between  two  and  three  o'clock  in  the  mornuig  of  that  day. 

Q.  At  what  place  ? 

A.  At  the  clerk's  office,  where  the  seal  is. 

Q.  Did  you  sit  up  in  that  office  all  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Wlio  brought  that  warrant  to  you  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  gentleman  who  brought  it;  he  said  he  was  a  member 
of  Congress,  Mr.  Pile,  of  Missonri. 

Q.  He  announced  himself  as  Mr.  Pile,  of  Missouri  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  then  brought  that  warrant  to  you  at  your  house  at  that  hour  in  the 
morning  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  went  then  to  the  clerk's  office  ? 

A.  I  went  to  the  clerk's  office  and  affixed  the  seal  and  attested  it. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  deliver  the  warrant  1 

A.  To  Mr.  Pile,  if  that  was  the  gentleman.  I  did  not  know  him,  and  do  not 
know  him  now. 

Q.  The  marshal  was  not  there  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Sfay  I  ask  to  what  article  this  applies  1 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Wljat  article!  It  does  not  apply  to  any  article.  It  applies 
very  conclusively  to  some  of  your  proof,  and  it  applies  very  much  to  our  answer, 
as  you  will  find  when  we  are  a  little  farther  along  in  the  case.  (To  the  wit- 
ness.)    Have  you  the  warrant  here? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  have. 

Q.  Did  he  bring  the  affidavit  iipon  which  the  warrant  was  founded,  or  did  you 
get  that  ai'terward  1 

A.  I  believe  all  the  papers  he  gave  me.  I  think  so  ;  but  am  not  sure  of  it. 
I  cannot  recollect. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  propose  to  read  these  papers,  gentlemen,  (handing  the 
warraiit  and  affidavit  to  the  manag(?rs.) 

Jlr.  Manager  Butler,  (having  examined  the  papers.)  I  understand,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, that  the  counsel  for  the  President  offer  the  affidavit  and  warrant  in  evi- 
dence. Before  coming  to  them  I  should  like  to  ask  a  question  or  two  of  the 
witness.     I  suppose  that  is  our  right. 

Mr.  Stan  BE  RY.   About  the  papers,  or  what  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  About  the  thing  you  have  been  examining  in  regard  to. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  all  we  have  been  examining  about. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  propose  to  examine  about  the  proof  you  have 
already  put  in. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  We  are  through  with  the  witness  as  soon  as  we  get  the 
papers.     You  can  take  him  now  and  cross-examine  him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler: 

Q.  You  say  you  affixed  the  seal  about  2  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  the  22d 
of  February '{  . 

A.  Between  2  and  3  o'clock  iq  the  morning. 

Q.  Were  you  called  upon  to  get  up  and  go  to  the  office  to  do  that  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  In  cases  where  great  crimes  have  been  committed,  and  it  is  necessary  to 
stop  the  further  progress. of  crime,  you  have  been  accustomed  to  do  that,  I 
suppose  ? 


510  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  do  not  know  of  any  case  where  that  was  necessary  to  prevent  a  crime. 
I  have  done  the  same  thing  in  habeas  corpus  cases,  and  in  (,>ne  replevin  case  I 
rumcmbor. 

Q.  Where  it  is  a  matter  of  consequence  you  do  these  things  when  called 
upon  ? 

A.  Certninly. 

Q.  It  is  nothing  unusual  for  you  to  do  it  in  such  cases  ? 

A.  It  cannot  be  taid  to  be  unusual.     I  would  do  it  at  any  time. 

By  J\[r.  Stanberv  : 

Q.  Have  you  often  been  called  upon  in  the  course  of  your  experience  at 
night  ? 

A.  Only  three  times,  and  this  is  one  of  them. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  became  cf  this  extreme  case  ?  What  was  done  with 
this  criminal  ? 

A.  I  was  not  present  at  the  examination. 

Mr.  Staxbb^ry,  (to  the  managers.)  Are  you  through  with  the  papers? 

Mr.  Mana;i,-er  Butler.   I  am  through  with  the  papers. 

Mr.  Stanbrhy.  Very  well. 

Mr.  ^lanager  Butler.  I  have  the  honor  to  object,  Mr,  President,  to  the  Avar- 
rant  and  affidavit  of  Mr.  Stanton  being  received  as  evidence  in  this  cause.  I 
do  not  think  Mr.  Stanton  can  make  testimony  against  the  President  by  any  affi- 
davit that  he  can  \n\i  iu,  or  for  him  by  any  proceedings  between  him  and  Lo- 
renzo Thomas.  1  do  not  think  the  warrant  is  relevant  to  this  casein  any  form. 
The  fact  that  Thomas  was  arrested  has  gone  in,  and  that  is  all.  To  put  in  the 
affidavit  upon  which  he  was  arrested  certainly  is  putting  in  res  infer  alios.  It 
is  not  a  proceeding  between  Thomas  and  the  President ;  but  this  is  between 
Thomas  and  Stanton,  and  in  no  view  is  it  either  pertinent  or  relevant  to  this 
case  or  competent  in  any  form,  so  far  as  I  am  instructed. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Ml".  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  the  arrest  of  Greiieral  Thomas 
was  brought  into  testimony  by  the  managers  and  they  argued,  I  believe,  in  their 
opening,  before  they  had  proved  it,  that  that  was  what  prevented  General 
1'homas  from  using  force  to  take  possession  of  the  War  Office.  We  now  pro- 
pose to  show  what  that  arrest  was  in  form  and  substance  by  the  authentic  docu- 
ments of  it,  which  are  tlie  warrant  and  the  affidavit  on  which  it  was  based. 
The  affidavit,  of  course,  does  not  prove  the  facts  stated  in  it;  but  the  proof  of 
the  affidavit  shows  the  fact  upon  which,  as  a  judicial  foundation,  the  warrant 
proceeded.  We  then  propose  to  follow  the  opening  thus  laid,  of  this  proceeding, 
by  showing  how  it  took  place  and  how  efforts  were  made  on  behalf  of  General 
Thomas  by  habeas  corpus  to  raise  the  question  for  the  deti'rmiiiation  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  r<>gard  to  this  act. 

Mr.  ]\[anager  Butler.  I  understand,  Mr.  President,  that  if  this  affidavit  goes 
in  at  all,  it  is  then  evidence  of  all  that  it  states,  if  the  genthiuen  have  a  right  to 
put  it  in. 

Mr.  Evarts.  I  said  otherwise  ;  but  you  can  have  your  own  conclusion.  We 
do  not  admit  it  to  be  so. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  That  is  my  conclusion,  and  that  was  what  we  should 
claim  ;  and  1  think  nothing  more  clearly  shows  that  it  cannot  be  evidence  than 
that  fact.  This  was  not  an  attempt  of  the  President  to  get  this  matter  before 
the  court ;  it  was  an  attem|)t  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  protect  himself  from  violence 
which  had  been  threatened  in  two  instances  before.  This  was  late  at  night. 
Mr.  Stanton,  we  can  easily  judge  from  the  evidence,  was  informed  tliat  night  of 
the  threats  made  to  Biirleigli,  the  threats  made  to  Wilkeson,  and  tlie  threats 
made  at  Willards'  llottd,  and  being  informed  of  them  he  did  not  know  at  what 
hour  this  man  might  bring  his  mas(|ueraders  upon  him,  and  thereupon  he  took 
care  to  protect  himself  at  the  earliest  possible  hour. 


IMPEACHMENT   OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  511 

But  how  that  can  relieve  the  President  from  crime,  Iiow  tliat  shows  tliat  lie 
did  or  did  not  commit  the  act  comphained  of,  because  Stanton  arrested  Tliomas 
or  Thomas  arrested  Stanton,  is  more  than  I  can  conceive.  Suppose  Stanton 
had  not  arrested  Thomas,  would  it  show  that  the  President  is  not  guilty  here  ? 
Suppose  he  did  arrest  him,  does  it  show  that  he  is  guilty  here  ?  Is  it  not  merely, 
in  the  language  of  the  law,  well  known  to  every  lawyer  in  the  Senate,  res  intn- 
alios  acta,  things  done  between  other  parties  than  the  parties  to  this  record? 
We  only  adverted  to  the  arrest  in  putting  in  Thomas's  declaration  to  show  what 
effect  it  had  on  his  mind. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  It  has  already  been  put  in  proof  by  General  Thomas  that  before 
he  went  to  the  court  upon  this  arrest  he  saw  the  President  and  told  him  of  his 
arrest,  and  the  President  immediately  replied  "  that  is  as  it  should  be  ;"  or, 
"  that  is  as  we  wish  it  to  be,  the  question  in  the  court."  Now,  I  propose  to 
show  that  this  is  the  question  that  was  in  the  courts,  to  wit :  the  question  of  the 
criminality  of  a  person  accused  under  this  civil-tenure  bill.  And  I  then  propose 
to  sustain  the  answer  of  the  President,  and  also  the  sincerity  and  substance  of 
this  his  statement  already  in  evidence,  by  showing  that  this  proceeding,  having 
been  commenced  as  it  was  by  Mr.  Stanton  against  General  Thomas,  was  imme- 
diately taken  hold  of  as  the  speediest  and  most  rapid  mode,  through  a  Jiaheas 
corjius,  ill  which  the  President  or  the  Attorney  General,  or  (Jeneral  Thomas  acting 
in  that  behalf,  would  be  the  actor,  in  oi'der  to  bi'ing  at  once  before  this  court, 
the  supreme  court  of  the  District,  the  question  of  the  validity  of  his  arrest  and 
confinement  under  an  act  claimed  to  be  unconstitutional,  with  an  immediate 
opportunity  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  then  in  session, 
from  which  at  once  there  could  have  been  obtained  a  determination  of  the  point. 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  And  whenever  that  is  proposed  to  be  shown  I  pro- 
pose to  show  that  Mr.  Thomas  was  discharged  on  the  motion  of  his  own  coun- 
sel from  arrest  by  the  judge. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Very  well ;  that  is  afterward  ;  we  will  see  about  that ;  we  will 
prove  our  case ;  you  can  prove  yours. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Admit  this,  and  the  Senate  will  be  travelling  into  the 
question  of  the  various  facts  taking  place  in  another  court ;  and  1  have  not  yet 
heard  any  of  the  learned  counsel  say  that  this  did  not  come  within  the  rule  of 
res  inter  alios  acta — things  done  between  others  than  parties  to  the  record. 
Mr.  EvARTS.  I  did  not  think  it  necessary. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  may  be  a  very  good  answer;  but,  whether  it  is 
necessary  or  not,  is  it  not  so  ?  Is  there  a  lawyer  anywhere  who  does  not  under- 
stand that,  and  who  does  not  know  that  the  proceedings  between  two  otber  per- 
sons, after  a  crime  is  committed,  never  yet  were  offered  in  evidence  to  show  that 
a  crime  was  not  committed? 

It  is  said  that  the  President  was  glad  to  get  this  matter  before  a  court.  Did 
he  see  that  affidavit  ?  No.  Did  he  know  what  was  in  it  ?  No.  All  he  knew 
was  that  his  man  was  carried  into  court  on  some  process  which  the  man  himself, 
Thomas,  did  not  even  know  what  it  was.  He  was  simply  arrested.  Mr.  Thomas 
himself  did  not  see  the  aftidavit  at  that  tim'e,  did  not  know  anything  of  the 
matter  except  that  he  was  taken  by  the  marshal.  He  had  never  seen  the  paper 
on  the  evidence  here  ;  he  ditl  not  even  know  for  what  he  was  arrested.  All  he 
knew  was  that  he  was  arrested  for  something  or  other  ;  whether  it  was  for  being 
at  the  masquerade  ball  the  night  before,  masked,  or  what  it  was  he  could  liot 
tell ;  he  do^^s  not  pretend  to  have  told  here  in  evidence ;  but  when  he  said  to 
the  President,  "  they  have  arrested  me  " — for  which  of  his  virtues  or  for  which 
of  his  crimes  nobody  knew — he  did  not,  he  does  not  say  that  he  ever  saw  any- 
paper  in  any  form;  but  he  simply  went  to  the  President  and  told  him  "  I  am 
arrested."  And  what,  then,  did  the  President  say  ?  "  Tnat  is  where  I  want 
you  to  be,  in  court."  I  should  have  thought  he  wanted  him  anywhere  else 
except  in  the  War  Office ;  and  that  is  all  the  testimony  shows  so  far. 


512  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Now,  they  propose  to  put  in  Mr.  Stanton's  aflidavit.  It  is  exceedinji^ly  good 
reading,  gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  and  sets  forth  the  case  with  great  lumiuous- 
ness.  It  shows  tlie  terror  and  alarm  of  the  good  citizens  of  the  District  of 
Columbia  when  at  night  men  who  are  known  to  be  men  of  constancy  and  stead- 
fastness, men  representing  important  districts  in  Congress,  felt  it  was  their  duty 
to  call  upon  the  chief  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  this  District  to  interpose, 
felt  that  it  was  their  duty  to  call  up  the  venerable  clerk  of  that  court  in  the 
dead  of  night  to  get  a  warrant,  and  felt  that  it  was  their  duty  to  take  imme- 
diate means  to  prevent  the  consummation  of  this  crime.  It  shows  the  terrdr 
and  alarm  which  the  unauthorized,  illegal,  and  criminal  acts  of  this  respondent 
had  thrown  this  city  into  at  that  hour.  Undoubtedly  all  that  is  in  tlic  affidavit ; 
undoubtedly  all  that  can  be  shown  ;  and  then,  thank  God,  we  have  before  the 
Senate  and  the  people  of  America  this  appeal  to  the  laws  by  Mr.  Stanton, 
which  this  criminal  respondent  never  undertook,  either  before  or  since,  although 
furnished  with  all  the  panoply  of  legal  attack  and  defence  in  the  Attorney 
General.  He  never  brought  his  q?{i?  loarranto  ;  he  never  brought  any  process  ; 
he  never  took  any  step  of  himself,  nor  had  he  for  a  year. 

All  that  will  appear  doubtless,  and  we  should  be  glad  to  have  it  in,  provided 
it  did  not  open  us  into  regions  of  unexplored  and  uncertain,  diffuse  and  im- 
proper evidence,  opening  entirely  new  issues.  If  you  are  ready  to  go  into  it  I 
am ;  but  I  say  it  does  not  belong  to  this  cose.  I  think  we  can  make  quite  as 
much  out  of  it  as  they  can,  but  it  is  no  portion  of  this  case.  It  is  not  the  act 
of  the  President;  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  President;  the  President  never 
saw  these  papeis  upon  any  evidence  here;  and  what  Mr.  Thomas  did,  and 
what  Mr.  Stanton  did,  they  themselves  must  stand  by. 

Mr.  StAiXBEIIY.  I  believe  our  hour  has  not  expired,  and  I  wish  upon  this 
matter  to  address,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  a  few  words  to  the  Senate. 

Senators,  there  ai-e  two  grounds  upon  which  we  ask  the  admission  of  this  tes- 
timony. First  of  all,  there  are  already  in  evidence  the  declarations  of  the  Presi- 
dent that  he  made  this  removal  to  bring  the  question  of  that  law  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  courts.  That  is  already  in  evidence,  and  as  to  that  the  mana- 
gers say  it  is  all  pretense,  all  a  subterfuge. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  Where  in  evidence '? 

Mr.  Stamjery.  Among  other  things  in  a  place  that  I  need  not  refer  to  now, 
the  speech  of  the  honorable  manager  who  opened  the  case. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  you  will  take  my  speech  as  evidence  I  am  very 
glad.     That  is  the  best  evidence. 

Mr.  Stamjery.  Not,  except  as  a  last  resort,  for  anything.  The  gentleman 
has  repeated  that  this  is  all  pretense  of  asking  to  get  into  the  courts,  that  it  is  a 
subterfuge,  an  afterthought,  a  mere  scheme  on  the  part  of  the  President  to 
avoid  the  consequences  of  an  act  done  with  another  intention  than  that.  Again, 
what  sort  of  a  case  have  the  managers  attempted  to  make  against  the  President 
upon  his  intentions  with  regard  to  the  occupation  of  the  AVar  Office  by  Thomas  ? 
They  have  sought  to  prove  that  the  intentions  of  the  President  were  not  to  get 
it  by  law  but  to  get  it  by  intimidation,  threats,  and  force ;  they  have  gone  into 
this  themselves  to  show  the  intent  of  the  President,  and  how  ?  They  have 
given  the  declarations  of  Thomas  as  to  his  purpose  of  using  threats,  intimida- 
tion, or  force,  and  claim  that  those  declarations  bind  the  President,  and  you, 
senators,  have  admitted  them  against  the  President.  The  mere  declarations  of 
Thomas  as  to  his  intention  to  enter  the  office  by  force  and  intimidatik)n  are  to  be 
considered  the  declarations  of  the  President,  and  as  evidence  of  his  intent.  Oh  ! 
say  the  gentlemen,  that  thing  was  stopped  by  this  prosecution ;  the  prompt 
arrest  of  General  Thomas  next  morning  was  the  only  thing  that  defeated  the 
accomplishment  of  the  jturpose  that  was  in  the  mind  of  the  President  and  in  the 
mind  of  General  Tlioinas. 

Mr.  Manager  Bu'J  ler.  I  did  not  eay  so.     Thomas  said  so. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    TRESIDENT.  513 

Mr.  Sta\bery.  Thomas  paid  so  !  Tlie  Senate  will  bear  me  witness  who 
said  so,  who  called  that  a  subterfuge,  and  who  called  that  a  pretence !  We 
wish  to  show  what  was  this  proceeding  got  up  at  midnight,  as  the  learned 
manager  says,  in  view  of  a  great  crime  just  committed  or  about  to  be  commit- 
ted ;  got  up  under  the  most  pressing  necessity,  with  a  judge,  as  we  will  show, 
summoned  from  his  bed  at  an  early  hour  that  winter  morning,  the  22d  of  Feb- 
ruary, at  2  o'clock — a  judge  brought  from  the  bench,  such  was  the  urgent 
and  pressing  necessity,  either  pi-etended  or  real,  on  the  part  of  iMr.  Stanton  to 
avoid  the  use  of  force  and  intimidation  to  remove  him  from  that  office.  We 
shall  show  that  having  had  him  arrested,  held  to  bail  in  S5,000,  the  time  of  the 
trial  or  further  hearing  of  this  great  criminal  having  been  fixed  for  the  next 
Wednesday,  all  this  being  done  on  the  prior  Saturday,  wlien  he  got  there  on 
that  day  it  turned  out  thus  :  "  Why,  we  have  got  no  criminal  at  all ;  General 
Thomas  is  just  as  good  a  citizen  as  we  have  in  this  community."  General 
Thomas's  counsel  say  to  the  court,  "He  is  surrendered  ;  he  is  in  custody  ;  and 
we  do  that  for  the  purpose  of  moving  a  habeas  corpus^  As  soon  as  that  pur- 
pose was  announced,- all  at  once. this  great  criminal  and  this  great  criminal  act 
immediately  disappear,  and  the  judge  says,  "  This  is  all  nothing  at  all  that  we 
have  had  against  you.  General  Thomas ;  we  do  not  even  want  to  ask  you  to 
give  bail;  on  the  contrary,  I  dismiss  you"  And  the  counsel  for  Mr.  Stanton, 
who  were  there  on  that  morning,  and  who  had  seen  this  great  criminal  pun- 
ished, or,  ot  any  rate,  put  under  bonds  for  good  behavior,  expressly  consent  to 
what?  Not  merely  that  he  shall  be  put  at  large  under  bonds;  not  merely  that 
he  shall  give  bonds  for  his  good  behavior,  but  that  he  shall  be  absolutely  dis- 
charged and  go  free,  just  as  if  there  was  no  prosecution  at  all ;  not  bound  over 
to  the  next  term'of  the  court,  but  totally  discharged,  and,  as  we  shall  show  you, 
discharged  for  the  very  purpose  of  preventing  what  was  then  in  preparation,  the 
presentation  of  a  habeas  corpus,  that  the  case  might  be  got  immediately  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  then  in  session,  the  only  ready  way  in 
which  the  question  could  be  brought  before  the  courts  and  decided  for  any  pur- 
pose of  any  value.     Senators,  is  that,  too,  to  be  excluded  %     I  trust  not. 

Mr.  ^Manager  Butler.  I  did  not  mean  to  trouble  the  Senate  again;  but  one 
or  two  statements  of  fact  have  been  made  to  which,  I  think,  I  must  call  your 
attention.  First,  it  is  said  that  Mr.  Thomas  was  discharged  wholly.  That 
depended  upon  the  chief  justice  of  that  court.  If  you  are  going  to  try  him  by 
impeachment,  wait  until  after  we  get  through  with  this  case.  One  trial  at  a 
time  is  sufficient.  Is  he  to  be  tried  because  he  did  not  do  his  duty  under  the 
circumstances  ?  Neither  Mr.  Stanton,  nor  your  honor,  nor  anybody  else  has 
•any  right  to  judge  of  the  act  of  that  court  until  he  is  here  to  defend  himself, 
which  the  chief  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  District  of  Columbia  is 
amply  able  to  do. 

Then  there  is  another  point  which  I  wish  to  take  into  consideration.  It  is 
said  that  Thomas  had  become  a  good  citizen.  I  have  not  agreed  to  that.  I  do 
not  believe  anybody  else  has ;  but  he  himself  testifies  that  the  fight  was  all  out 
of  him  the  next  morning  after  this  process,  and  they  put  in  then  that  he  agreed 
to  remain  neutral.  Then  there  was  no  occasion  to  hold  him  any  longer.  He 
took  a  drink  to  seal  the  neutrality.  Do  they  not  remember  the  testimony  that 
on  the  next  morning  after  this  he  and  Stanton  took  a  drink  and  agreed  to  remain 
neutral,  and  they  held  up  the  glasses  and  said,  "This  is  neutral  ground  now?" 
What  was  the  use  of  holding  him  any  further  ? 

Mr.  Stanbery.     That  is,  he  took  a  drink  with  the  great  criminal ! 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.     He  took  a  drink  with  the  President's  tool ;  that  is 

all.     The  thing  was  settled.     The  poor  old  man  came  and  complained  that  he 

had  not  had  anything  to  eat  or  drink,  and  in  tender  mercy  to  him  Mr.  Stanton 

gave  him  something  to  drink ;  and  he  says  that  from  that  hour,  if  he  had  not 

33  I  P 


514  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT, 

before,  lie  has  never  had  an  idea  of  force.  What,  then,  was  the  use  of  holding 
him? 

Now,  I  wi.<h  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  another  statement  of  fact, 
and  that  is,  that  they  did  not  hold  him  to  keep  the  peace.  Why,  the  next 
morning  he  was  told  that  he  was  not  held  to  keep  the  peace.  He  sai  i  that  here 
to  the  Senate  upon  his  oath,  and  he  insisted  upon  putting  it  in  ;  I  objected,  but 
he  said  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  make  that  point,  and  then  I  yielded  that  he 
might  do  it.  He  said  to  the  Senate  that  the  judge  told  him,  "This  does  not 
interfere  in  any  way  with  your  duties  as  Secretary  of  War." 

But  there  is  still  another  thing.  This  unconstitutional  law  has  been  on  the 
statute-book  since  a  year  ago  last  March.  The  learned  Attorney  G-eueral  of  the 
United  States  stands  before  me.  Where  is  the  M^rit  of  quo  warranto  which  it 
was  his  duty  to  file  ? 

Mr.  Sta.xbery.  I  will  show  it  to  you  right  away,  as  soon  as  I  get  through 
this  testimony. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  it  will  be  the  first  exhibition  that  has  ever 
been  made  to  any  court  in  the  United  States  of  it,  if  it  is  shown  to  me.  I  sup- 
pose it  has  been  prepared  since  as  part  of  this  defence.  Where  is  the  quo  war- 
ranto filed  in  any  court.  Judge  Cartter's  court  or  anybody  else's  court  {  Where 
is  the  proceeding  taken  ?  He — I  put  it  to  him  as  a  lawyer;  dare  he  deny  it  ? — 
he  is  the  only  man  in  the  United  States  who  could  file  a  quo  ivarranto,  and 
he  knows  it.  He  is  the  only  man  who  could  initiate  this  proceeding,  and  he 
knows  it.  And  yet  it  was  not  done ;  and  still  he  comes  here  and  talks  about 
putting  in  the  quarrels  between  Mr.  Stanton  and  Mr.  Thomas  over  this  matter. 
They  are  res  inter  alios,  I  say  again — things  done  between  others — and  they 
have  nothing  more  to  do  with  this  case,  and  hardly  as  much  as  the  fact  which 
the  President  with  his  excelleiit  taste,  and  the  excellent  taste  of  his  counsel, 
drew  out  here  against  my  objection,  that  Mr.  Stanton,  when  this  man  Thomas 
claimed  that  he  was  fainting  for  want  of  his  breakfast  and  his  drink,  gave  him 
a  drink. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  their  question  to 
writing. 

Mr.  Sta.xbery.  It  is  the  affidavit,  if  the  court  please,  that  we  oft^er  in  evi- 
dence. 

The  Chief  Justice.     What  does  the  affidavit  relate  to  ] 

Mr.  Staxuerv.  It  is  that  upon  which  the  warrant  w'as  issued — the  affidavit 
by  ]\[r.  Stanton,  and  the  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  Thomas  founded  on  that 
affidavit.     We  offer  the  two  papers. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  To  be  followed  by  the  other  proof  which  we  have  stated. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  the  affidavit  upon  which  the 
arrest  was  made  is  competent  testimony,  as  it  relates  to  a  transaction  upon 
which  Mr.  Thomas  has  already  been  examined,  and  as  it  may  be  material  to 
show  the  purpose  of  the  President  to  resort  to  a  court  of  law.  He  will  be  happy 
to  put  the  question  to  the  Senate  if  any  member  desires  it.  (No  senator  being 
heard  to  speak.)     Read  the  affidavit. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Does  your  honor  understand  that  the  affidavit  is 
admitted  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ]\Ianager  Butler.   I  heard  one  senator  ask  for  the  question  to  be  put. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Does  any  senator  ask  the  question  to  be  put? 

Mr.  (y'oiX.NKSS.  I  asked  that  the  question  be  put,  and  1  now  ask  for  the  yeas 
and  nays  upon  it. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered 

Mr.  Howard.  1  wish  the  question  might  be  read.  We  do  not  fully  under- 
stand it. 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  Chair  will  state  that  the  counsel  for  the  President 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  .  515 

propose  to  put  in  the  affidavit  upon  wliicli  tlie  arrest  of  General  Tliomas  was 
made  on  the  morning,  I  think,  of  the  22d  of  February. 

Mr.  Johnson.  It  is  impossible  to  decide  without  knowing  what  the  paper  is. 

The  CUiiEF  Justice.  Will  the  counsel  state  what  they  propose  to  prove  in 
writing  1 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  will  read  the  affidavit. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  object  to  that.     Then  it  is  in. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Objection  is  made  to  reading  the  affidavit.  If  the 
counsel  will  state  what  they  propose  to  prove  in  writing  it  will  be  better. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  We  propose  to  offer  an  affidavit  made  by  Mr.  Stanton  on 
the  night  of  the  2 1st  or  morning  of  the  22d  of  February. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Will  you  state  it  in  writing  ?. 

The  proposition  having  been  reduced  to  writing, 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  Secretary  will  read  the  proposition  of  the  counsel 
for  the  President. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

AYe  offer  a  warrant  of  arrest  of  General  Thomas,  dated  February  22,  1868,  and  the  affi- 
davit on  which  the  warrant  issued.     • 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  evidence 
proposed  to  be  offered  by  the  counsel  for  the  President  is  admissible,  will,  as 
your  names  are  called,  answer  yea;  those  of  the  contrary  opinion,  na^'.  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Tlie  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  34,  nays  17 ;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cattell,  Cole,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Davis,  Dixon, 
Doolittle,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Frelingbuyseu,  Grimes,  Pleuderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson, 
McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New 
Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Pomeroy,  Ross,  Sherman,  Sumner,  Trumbull,  Van 
Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  Williams,  and  Yates — M. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conness,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Har- 
lan, Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Nye,  Ramsey,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  and  Wilson — 17. 

Not  voting— Messrs.  Saalsbury,  Sprague,  and  Wade — 3. 

So  the  Senate  decided  that  the  off'er  of  the  counsel  should  be  admitted. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  Avill  read  the  papers.     The  affidavit  is  : 
To  Hon.  David  K.  Carttcr,  Chkf  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  the  District  of  Columbia  : 

Comes  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  of  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  said  District,  and  upon  oath 
says  that  on  the  21  st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  18(58,  he;  the  said  Edwin"  M.  Stanton,  duly 
held  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  department  of  War,  under  and  according  to  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  United  States  ;  that  he  had,  prior  to  said  2lst«day  of  February,  A. 
D.  1868,  been  duly  nominated  and  appointed  to  the  said  office  of  Secretary  of  War  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  that  his  said  nomination  had  ]>een  submitted  in  due  form 
of  law  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  his  said  nomination  had  been  duly  assented 
to  and  confirmed  by  and  with  the  advice  of  the  Senate  ;  and  he,  the  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton, 
had  duly  accepted  said  office,  and  taken  out  and  subscribed  all  the  oaths  required  by  law, 
upon  his  induction  into  said  office,  and  was  in  the  actual  possession  of  said  office  and  per- 
forming the  duties  thereof  on  the  said  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1868,  and  he  had  never 
resigned  said  office,  or  been  legally  dismissed  therefrom,  and  he  claims  that  he  does  now 
legally  hold  said  office,  and  is  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  powers  thereof. 

And  the  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton  on  oath  further  states  that  on  said  2lst  day  of  February, 
18G8,  in  the  city  of  Washington  aforesaid,  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States, 
made  and  issued  an  order  in  writing  under  his  hand,  with  intent  and  purpose  of  removing  him, 
the  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  from  the  said  office  of  Secretary'  for  the  Department  of  War,  and 
authorizing  and  empowering  Loreuzo  Thomas,  Adjutant  General  of  the  army  of  the  United 
States,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  directing  him,  the  saidTliomas,  to  iuunedi- 
ately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  pertaining  to  that  office.  And  your  affiant  further 
states  that  the  said  pretended  order  of  removal  of  him  from  the  said  office  of  Secretary  of 
War  is  wholly  illegal  and  void,  and  contrary  to  the  express  provisions  of  an  act  duly  passed  by 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  on  the  2d  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1867,  entitled  "An  act  regu- 
lating the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices."  And  your  affiant  on  oath  further  states  that  the  said 
Lorenzo  Thomas  did,  on  said  '^Ist  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1868,  in  said  city  of  Washington, 
accept  the  said  pretended  appointment  as  Secretary'  of  War  ad  interim,  and  on  the  same  day 
left  with  your  affiant  a  copy  of  the  said  pretended  order  of  the  President  removing  your 


516  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT 

affiant  as  Secretaiy  of  .War,  and  appointing  the  said  Lorenzo  Thomas  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim,  ceiiitied  by  the  said  Lorenzo  Thomas  under  his  own  hand  as  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim.  And  on  the  same  "il.st  day  of  Fehruary,  A.  D.  18(5:^,  in  the  city  of  Washington 
aforesaid,  the  said  Lorenzo  Thomas  delivered  to  your  affiant  the  said  pretended  order  of 
Andrew  Johnson,  with  intent  to  cause  your  affiant  to  deliver  to  him,  the  said  Thomas,  all  the 
I'ecords,  books,  papers,  and  other  public  property  now  in  his  (the  affiant's)  custody  and  charge 
as  Secretary  of  War.  And  your  affiant  further  states  on  oath,  and  that  he  is  informed  and 
believes  that  the  said  Thomas  has,  in  said  city  of  Washington  and  District  aforesaid,  exer- 
"cised  and  attempted  to  exercise  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War,  and  to  issue  orders  as  such; 
and  your  affiant  is  also  informed  and  believes  that  tlie  said  Lorenzo  Thomas  gives  out  and 
threatens  that  he  will  forcibly  remove  your  complainant  from  the  building  and  apartments  of 
the  Secretary  of  War  in  the  War  Department,  and  forcibly  take  the  possession  and  control 
thereof  under  his  said  pretended  appointment  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  as  Sec- 
retary of  War  ad  interim. 

Aiid  yoiu-  afKant  alleges  that  .the  appointment  under  which  the  said  Thomas  claims  to  act, 
and  to  hold  and  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War,  is  wholly  unauthorized  and  illegal, 
and  that  the  said  Thomas,  by  accepting  such  appointment,  and  thereunder  exercising  and 
attempting  to  exercise  tlie  duties  of  Secretary  of  War,  has  violated  the  provisions  of  the  fifth 
section  of  the  act  above  referred  to,  and  thereby  has  been  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor,  and 
subjected  himself  to  the  pains  and  penalties  prescribed  in  said  fifth  section  against  any  person 
committing  such  oti'euce. 

AVhereupou  your  affiant  prays  that  a  warrant  may  be  issued  against  Lorenzo  Tliomas,  und 
that  he  may  be  thereupon  arrested  and  brought  before  your  honor,  and  thereupon  that  he  may 
be  dealt  with  as  to  the  law  and  justice  in  such  case  appertains. 

EDWIN  M.  STANTON. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  this  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  18(58. 

D.  k.  CAKTTER,  dhicf  Justice. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  by  Edwin  M.  Stanton  at  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  this  22d  day  of  February,  1868. 

B.K.  CAllTTE'R,  Chiff  Justice. 

The  wan-ant  is  dated  the  22d  of  February,  ISGS. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  First  the  21st  and  then  the  22d.  It  is  dated  before  12  o'clock, 
and  then  after  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  sworn  to  twice — once  on  the  21st,  and  once  on  the  22d. 
The  warrant  is  as  follows  : 

United  States  of  America,  District  of  Columhia,  ss  ; 

To  David  S.  Gooding,  United  States  marshal  for  the  District  of  Columbia :  I,  David  K. 
Cartter,  chief  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  theJDistrict  of  Columbia,  hereby  command  you 
to  arrest  Lorenzo  Thomas  of  said  District  forthwith,  and  that  you  have  the  said  Lorenzo 
Thomas  before  me  at  the  chambers  of  the  said  supreme  court  in  the  city  of  Washington,  forth- 
with, to  answer  to  the  charge  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  this,  that  on  the  21st  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, 18t3iS,  in  the  District  of  Coluuibia,  he  did  unlawfully  accept  the  aiipnintiuent  of  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  did  then  and  there  unlawfully  liold  and  exercise 
and  attempt  to  hold  and  exercise  the  said  office  contrary  to  the  provisions  ot  the  act  entitled 
"  An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  olHces,"  passed  March  2, 1807,  and  hereof  fail 
not,  but  nuike  due  return. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  of  said  court  this  22d  day  of  February,  1868. 

fL.  s  ]  D.  K.  CARTTER, 

Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Attest : 

R.  J.  MEIGS,  Clerk. 

The  marshal's  return  is  as  follows : 

Washington  City,  D.  C,  Fchruanj  22,  1868. 
Tlie  within  writ  came  to  hand  at  seven  o'clock  a.  m.,  and  was  served  by  me  on  the  said 
Lorenzo  Thomas  at  eight  o'clock  a.  m.,  and  I  now  return  this  writ  and  bring  him  before 
Chief  Justice  Curtter  at  nine  o'clock  a.  m.  of  to-day. 

DAVID  S.  GOODING, 

United  States  Marshal  D.  C. 

By  Mr.  Stanuery: 

Q.  Mr.  Meigs,  I  perceive  this  is  a  judge's  warrant  at  chambers? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  keeping  any  record  further  than  filing  the  papers, 
or  did  you  make  any  record  further  than  liliug  the  papers  of  that  proceeding  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  517 

A.  "When  the  recognizance  was  executed  that  was  put  upon  the  docket  of  the 
court.     You  will  see  that  the  warrants  are  marked  with  a  number. 

Q.  The  recognizance  of  bail  ? 

A.  As  soon  as  that  is  done  the  cases  are  all  put  upon  the  docket  of  the  court 
in  order  that  it  may  appear  how  the  defendant  is  discharged,  or  what  becomes 
of  him. 

Q.  AVell,  has  this  defendant  been  discharged? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  Stay  a  moment.     That  will  appear  by  the  record. 

The  Witness.  Yes;  that  will  appear  by  the  record. 

By  Mr.  Stanberv: 

Q.  Have  yon  a  record  of  the  discharge  also  1 

A.  The  docket  shows  that. 

Q.  Is  that  the  docket  of  the  judge  or  the  docket  of  the  court? 

A.  The  docket  of  the  court. 

Q.  Does  the  judge  return  the  case  into  court? 

A.  The  recognizance  of  course  is  returned  into  court. 

Q.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  recognizance;  I  am  speaking  of  this  case. 

A.  The  recognizance  was  taken  upon  that  case,  and  was  returned  into  court, 
and  was  entered  upon  the  docket  of  the  court. 

Q.  You  make  no  record  of  these  papers  1 

A.  No;  no  record  of  those  papers.  They  are  filed,  and  constitute  a  part  of 
the  record  of  the  case  at  court. 

Q.  Have  you  got  your  docket  with  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  The  subpoena  did  not  require  it  to  be  brought,  and  of  course  it 
was  not  brought. 

Mr.  Stanberv,  (to  the  managers.)  We  will  have  the  docket  if  you  require 
it,  gentlemen.     Do  you  want  that  formal  matter  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  A  little  more  than  that. 

Mr.  Stanbbry.  Do  you  want  us  to  produce 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  want  anything,  except  1  shall  object  to  any 
incompetent  testimony. 

Mr.  Stanberv.  You  can  take  this  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Meigs. 

Mr.  Stanbeky.  Mr.  Meigs,  will  you  bring  this  docket  that  contains  this 
entry  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  A  single  word.  Will  you  not  extend 
the  record  as  far  as  you  can,  and  bring  us  a  certified  copy  of  this  case  as  it  will 
appear  after  being  extended  ? 

Mr.  Stanberv.  Call  Mr.  Clephane. 

Mr.  Johnson,  (sending  a  question  to  the  desk.)  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  desire 
to  put  a  question  to  General  Sherman.     He  is  in  the  room,  I  believe. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question.  To. whom  does 
the  senator  from  Maryland  address  it? 

Mr.  Johnson.  General  Sherman.     He  is  in  the  court,  I  understand.  • 

William  T.  Sherman  recalled. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question  of  Sir.  Johnson,  as  follows : 

"When  the  President  tendered  to  you  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  on  the  27th 
of  January,  1868,  and  on  the  31st  of  the  same  montli  and  year,  did  he,  at  the  very  time  of 
making  such  tender,  state  to  you  what  his  purpose  in  so  doing  was  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  We  object  to  the  question  as  being  within  the  ruling 
of  the  Senate,  and  incompetent. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the 
Senate. 


518  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Drake.  Upon  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  wore  ordered. 

The  CiMEF  Justice.  Senators,  you  wlio  are  of  opinion  tliat  tlie  question  pro- 
posed hy  the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland  is  admissible,  will,  as  your  names 
are  called,  answer  yea  ;  those  of  a  contrary  opinion,  nay. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Before  the  roll  is  called  I  ask  that  the  question  be  read  again. 

The  Secretary  again  read  the  question. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  26,  nays  22;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — jNIessrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cole,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessenden, 
Fowler,  Froiiugbuysen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Johnson,  McCreerv,  Morrill  of  Miiine,  Morrill 
of  Vermont,  Morton,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Sherman,  Sumner,  Trumbull, 
Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — 26. 

Navs. — Messrs.  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conness,  Covbett,  Crafrin,  Drake,  Edmunds, 
Ferry,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Nye,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton, 
Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 22. 

Not  voting— Messrs.  Cameron,.  Hendricks,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Saulsbury, 
Sprague,  and  Wade — G. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  26  and  the  nays  22.  So 
the  question  is  admitted  and  will  be  put  to  the  witness.  The  secretary  will  read 
the  question  again. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question  to  the  witness,  as  follows  : 

When  the  President  tendered  to  you  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  on  the  27th 
of  January,  18G8,  and  on  the  31st  of  the  same  month  and  year,  did  lie,  at  the  very  time  of 
making  such  tender,  state  to  you  what  his  purpose  in  so  doing  was  ? 

The  Witness.  He  stated  to  me  that  his  purpose 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stay  a  moment.  The  question,  Mr.  Chief  Justice, 
was  whether  he  did  state,  not  what  he  stated.  We  want  to  object  to  what  he 
stated. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Answer  yes  or  no,  general. 

Answer.  Yes. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  witness  answers  that  he  did. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  What  purpose  did  he  state  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  To  that  we  object. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  counsel  had  dismissed  this  witness,  and  he  is  not 
to  be  brought  back,  on  a  question  of  the  court,  for  the  purpose  of  counsel  open- 
ing the  case  again. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  it  is  entirely  competent  for 
the  Senate  to  recall  any  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  not  objected  to  the  Senate  recalling  a  witness. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Senate  has  decided  that  the  question  shall  be  put 
to  the  witness.  That  amounts  to  a  recalling  of  him,  and  the  Chief  Justice  is  of 
opinion  that  the  witness  is  bound  to  answer  the  question.  Does  any  senator 
object  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  understand  that  the  only  question  he  has  been 
recalled  for  has  been  answei-ed. 

Mr.  Evarts.  AVe  have  asked  another  question. 

]Mr.  Johnson.  J  propose  to  add  to  it — I  thought  my  question  included  that — 
if  the  President  did,  what  did  he  state  that  his  purpose  was? 

Mr.  Manager  BiNGiiAM.  To  that  we  object;  and  we  ask  the  Senate  to  con- 
sider that  the  last  clause  suggested  now  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Mary- 
land, "  and  what  did  the  President  say,"  is  the  very  question  which  the  Senate 
this  day  did  solemnly  decide  adversely  to  its  being  put,  and  it  so  decided  on 
Saturday  ;  in  short,  the  last  clause  now  put  to  the  witness  by  the  honorable 
senator  from  Maryland  is,  M'hat  did  the  President  say?  making  the  President's 
declarations  evidence  for  himself  when  they  are  not  called  out  by  the  government. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  519 

It  was  suggested  by  my  associate  in  argument  on  Saturday  that  if  tliat  method 
were  pursued  in  the  administration  of  justice,  and  the  declarations  of  the  accused 
were  made  evidence  for  himself  at  his  pleasure,  the  administration  of  justice 
would  be  impossible  in  any  court. 

j\[r.  Davis.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order. 

The  Chief  Justick.  The  senator  from  Kentucky. 

Mr.  Davis.  It  is  that  one  of  the  managers  has  no  right  to  object  to  a  question 
propounded  by  a  member  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  We  might  as  well  meet  that  question  now. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  I  desire  to  say  on  that  subject,  if  I  may  be  allowed 
to  do  so,  without  trespas:^ing 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorable  manager  will  wait  one  moment.  When 
a  member  of  the  court  propounds  a  question  it  seems  to  the  Chief  Justice  that  it 
is  clearly  within  the  competency  of  the  managers  to  object  to  the  question  being 
put  and  state  the  grounds  for  that  objection,  as  a  legal  question.  It  is  not  com- 
petent for  the  managers  to  object  to  a  member  of  the  court  asking  a  question  ; 
but  after  the  question  is  asked,  it  seems  to  the  Chief  Justice,  that  it  is  clearly  com- 
petent for  the  managers  to  state  their  objections  to  the  questions  being  answered. 

Mr.  Conn  ess.  I  ask  that  the  question  now  put  be  reduced  to  writing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  clerk  has  it  reduced  to  writing.     It  will   be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  it,  as  follows  : 

If  he  did,  state  what  he  said  his  purpose  was. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  Do  I  understand  that  to  be  a  part  of,  or  an  addition  made  to 
the  other  question  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Part  of  the  same  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  must  be  regarded  at  present  as  an  independent 
question. 

Mr.  Conness.  And  therefore  I  ask  that  the  independent  question  be  reduced 
to  writing.     It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  other. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  understands  the  question  which  has 
just  been  read  by  the  clerk  t!)  be  the  question. 

Mr.  Conness.  Then  I  call  fur  its  reading  again. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  Secretary.)  Read  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

If  he  did,  state  Avhat  he  said  his  purpose  was  ? 

Mr.  Conness.  "Did"  what? 

Mr.  Drake.  I  would  inquire  for  information,  Mr  President,  whether,  in  order 
to  test  the  introduction  of  that  question,  it  is  necessary  that  a  senator  should 
object  to  its  being  put  ? 

Mr.  Edmunds.  No  ;  the  Chief  Justice  has  decided  that  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Drake.  Very  well.. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  has  said  that  it  does  not  seem  to 
him  competent  for  the  managers  or  the  counsel  to  object  to  a  question  being  put 
by  a  senator ;  but  after  it  has  been  put,  the  question  whether  it  shall  be 
answered  must  necessarily  depend  upon  the  judgment  of  the  court,  and  either 
the  counsel  for  the  President  or  the  honorable  managers  are  quite  at  liberty  to 
address  any  observations  they  see  fit  to  the  court  upon  that  point. 

Several  Senators.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Certainly  ;   I  do  not  doubt  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Upon  that  statement  I  may  be  pardoned  for  saying 
our  only  purpose  is  to  object  to  the  answer  being  taken  by  the  Senate  to  the 
question,  and  not  to  object  to  the  right  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Mary-    , 
land  to  offer  his  question. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  so  understand. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingha.m.  And  that  is  the  question  that  is  before  the  Senate 


520  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  qiipstion  that  we  raise  before  the  Senate  is,  that  it  is  incompetent  for  the 
accused  to  make  his  own  decLirations  evidence  for  himself. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  has  ah-eady  said  upon  a  former 
occasion  that  he  thinks  that,  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  intent,  this  question 
is  admissible ;  and  he  thinks,  also,  that  it  comes  within  the  rule  which  has  been 
adopted  by  the  Senate  as  a  guide  for  its  own  action.  This  is  not  an  ordinary 
court,  but  it  is  a  court  composed  largely  of  lawyers  and  gentlemen  of  great 
experience  in  the  business  transactions  of  life,  and  they  are  quite  competent  to 
determine  upon  the  effect  of  any  evidence  which  may  be  submitted  to  them  ; 
and  the  Chief  Justice  thought  that  the  rule  which  the  Senate  adopted  for 
itself  was  found  in  this  fact ;  and  in  accordance  with  that  rule,  by  which  he 
determined  the  question  submitted  on  Saturday,  he  now  determines  this  qixes- 
tion  in  the  same  way. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  ask  for  a  vote  of  the  Senate  upon  the  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  only  want  to  ask  a  single  question.  The  Chief 
Justice  understands  this,  as  does  the  board  of  managers,  as  I  understand,  to  be 
precisely  the  same  question  that  was  ruled  upon  on  last  Saturday  evening,  when 
the  Chief  Justice  ruled. 

Mr.  Manager  Bl\ghaj\i.  And  this  morning,  too. 

The  Chief  Jus'I'Ice.  The  Chief  Justice  does  not  intend  to  say  that.  "What 
he  does  say  is,  that  this  is  a  question  of  the  same  general  import,  to  show  the 
intent  of  the  President  during  these  transactions.  The  Secretary  will  read  the 
question  again. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  ask  that  both  questions  be  read,  the  first  and  the  second, 
taken  in  connection  with  each  other.     The  witness  has  answered  the  first. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  original  question,  and  then 
he  will  read  the  present  question  before  the  Senate. 

The  Secretary.  The  first  question  was  : 

When  tlie  President  tendered  to  you  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  intcrivi  on  the  27th 
of  January,  18(;s,  and  on  the  31st  of  the  same  month  and  year,  did  he,  at  the  very  time  of 
making  such  tender,  state  to  you  what  liis  purpose  in  so  doing  was? 

The  witness  having  answered  this,  the  question  now  is  : 

If  he  did,  state  what  he  said  his  purpose  was  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  question  just 
read,  "if  he  did,  state  what  he  said  his  purpose  Avas,"  is  admissible,  and  should 
be  put  to  the  witness,  will,  as  your  names  are  called,  answer  yea;  those  of  a 
contrary  opinion,  nay.     The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  ilowE.  Before  I  vote  upon  the  admissibility  of  this  answer,  I  wish,  if 
there  is  any  regular  mode  of  doing  so,  to  ascertain  the  state  of  the  record  upon 
another  point ;  and  that  is,  whether  the  fact  that  this  ofiice  was  tendered  to  the 
witness  on  the  stand  was  a  fact  put  in  by  the  defence  or  by  the  prosecution. 
My  own  recollection  is  not  very  distinct  about  it,  and  I  am  not  sure  that  I  am 
right. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  must  remind  the  senator  that  no 
debate  is  in  order  unless  there  be  a  motion  to  retire  for  conference. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  may  be  permitted,  as  counsel,  to  state  that  it  was  put  in  by 
the  defence. 

Mr.  ]\Ianagcr  Bingham.  It  was  put  in  by  the  defence. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  I  have  so  stated. 

Mr.  Manager  BiNGllAiM.  I  wish  it  to  be  understood  distinctly. 

Mr.  IfoWE.  The  Chief  Justice  will  allow  me  to  remark  that  putting  a  question 
to  ascertain  the  state  of  the  record  was  entering  into  debate  by  no  manner  of 
means. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  may  be,  however. 

Mr.  UoWE.  It  may  not  be. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  521 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas,  26  ;  nays,  25 ;  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Antliony,  Bayard,  Bnckalew,  Cole,  Corhett,  Davis,  Dixoii,  Doolittle, 
Fesseiideu,  Fow1(M',  Freliuglmysen,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery, 
Morton,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Slierinan,  Sumner,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle, 
Yickers,  and  Willey — 2G. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conness,  Crap;in,  Drake,  Edmunds, 
Ferry,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Nye,  Patter- 
son of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey, Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and 
Yates — 25. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Saulsbury,  Spraf^ue,  and  Wade — 3. 

So  the  question  propounded  by  Mr.  Johnson  was  held  to  be  admissible. 

The  Witness.  May  I  take  the  question  in  my  hand  1  (The  question  was 
handed  to  the  witness  and  examined  by  him.)  The  first  question  was  as  to 
"  both  occasions."  (The  previous  question  was  handed  to  the  witness  and 
examined  by  him.) 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  covers  both  occasions. 

The  "\YiT.\ESS.  The  conversations  were  long  and  covered  a  great  deal  of 
ground ;  but  I  will  endeavor  to  be  as  precise  to  the  point  as  possible.  The 
President  stated  to  me  that  the  relations  which  had  grown  up  between  the 
Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Stanton,  and  himself 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stay  a  moment.  I  must  again  interpose,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. The  question  is  simply  what  the  President  stated  his  purpose  was,  and 
not  to  put  in  his  whole  declarations. 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  all  that  is  asked.     That  is  preliminary  to  that. 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  is  all  he  is  going  to  answer. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  pray  that  that  may  be  submitted  to  the  Senate, 
whether  they  will  have  the  whole  of  the  long  conversation,  which  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  His  purpose  in  offering  General  Sherman  a  commis- 
sion. ' 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir.  ' 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  it. 

The  Witness.  I  intended  to  be  very  precise  and  very  short ;  but  it  appeared 
to  me  necessary  to  state  what  I  began  to  state,  that  the  President  told  me  that 
the  relations  between  himself  and  Mr.  Stanton,  and  between  Mr.  Stanton  and 
the  other  members  of  the  cabinet,  were  such  that  he  could  not  execute  the  oflSce 
which  he  filled  as  President  of  the  United  States  without  making  provision 
ad  interim  for  that  ofiice  ;  that  he  had  the  right  under  the  law  ;  he  claimed  to 
have  the  right,  and  his  purpose  was  to  have  the  office  administered  in  the  interest 
of  the  army  and  of  the  country  ;  and  he  offered  me  the  office  in  that  view.  He 
did  not  state  to  me  then  that  his  purpose  was  to  bring  it  to  the  courts  directly ; 
but  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  office  admhustered  properly  in  the  interest  of 
the  army  and  of  the  whole  country. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  On  both  occasions,  General,  or  the  other  occasion? 

The  Witness.  I  asked  him  why  lawyers  could  not  make  a  case;  that  I  did 
not  wish  to  be  brought  as  an  officer  of  the  army  into  any  controversy. 

Mr.  Conkling.  Will  you  repeat  that  last  answer.  General? 

The  Witness.  I  asked  him  why  lawyers  could  not  make  a  case,  and  not 
bring  me,  as  an  officer,  into  the  controversy.  His  answer  was  that  it  was  found 
impossible,  or  a  case  could  not  be  made  up  ;  but,  said  he,  "  If  we  can  bring  the 
case  to  the  courts  it  would  not  stand  half  an  hour."  I  think  that  is  all  that  he 
stated  to  me  then. 

By  Mr.  Stanbery: 
Q.  On  either  occasion  ? 
Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  my  question. 


522  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Witness.  I'lie  conversatiou  was  very  long  and  covered  a  great  deal  o^ 
ground 

Mr.  ]\raiiager  El'tler.  I  object  to  tins  examination  being  reneAved  by  tlie 
counsel  for  the  President. 

Mr.  Stambkrv.  There  were  two  occasions.  Has  the  witness  got  through 
both?     That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Whatever  may  be  the  pretence  under  which  it  is  to 
be  renewed,  I  hold  that,  according  to  the  due  order  of  trials,  it  ought  not  to  be 
allowed.  Let  us  see  how  it  is  to  be  done,  ]\[r.  President.  The  counsel  dis- 
missed this  witness  and  he  was  gone,  and  he  is  brought  back  at  the  request  of 
one  of  the  judges,  and  that  judge 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  must  interrupt  the  learned  manager  to  say  that  we  did 
not  dismiss  him.  On  the  contrary,  both  sides  asked  to  retain  him,  the  learned 
manager  saying  at  the  time  that  he  wanted  to  give  him  a  private  examination. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  To  that  I  must  interpose  a  denial.  I  have  asked  for 
no  private  examination,  I  say  the  counsel  dismissed  him  from  the  stand,  dis- 
missed him  as  a  Avitness  in  the  case  from  the  stand.  Then  he  is  called  back  by 
one  of  the  judges.  In  any  court  that  anybody  ever  practiced  in  before,  or  in 
any  tribunal,  when  that  is  done,  and  a  question  is  put  by  a  jude:e,  that  never 
yet  opened  the  case  to  have  the  witness  examined  by  the  counsel  who  had  dis- 
missed him. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  question.  I  think  I  asked  him 
to  answer  as  to  both  of  the  occasions  when  the  office  was  tendered  to  him. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Maryland. 

The  Secretary.  The  witness  having  answered  "  yes  "  to  the  previous  ques- 
tion, the  question  is,  "  state  what  he  said  his  purpose  was  ?  " 

The  Chief  Justice.  Nothing  is  more  usual  in  courts  of  justice  than  to  recall 
witnesses  for  further  examination,  especially  at  the  instance  of  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  court.  It  is  very  often  done  at  the  instance  of  counsel.  It  is,  how- 
ever, a  matter  wholly  within  the  discretion  of  the  court ;  and  if  any  senator 
desires  it  the  Chief  Justice  will  be  happy  to  put  it  to  the  court,  whether  the 
witness  shall  be  further  examined.     If  not 

Mr.  Williams.  I  ask  for  the  opinion  of  the  court  on  that  subject,  Avhether 
the  counsel  can  renew  the  examination  of  this  witness  and  go  beyond  the  ques- 
tion propounded  by  a  member  of  the  court. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  the  question  they  pro- 
pose to  writing. 

The  question  having  been  reduced  to  writing,  was  seiit  to  the  Secretary's 
desk,  and  read  as  follows  : 

Have  you  answered  as  to  both  occasions  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  objected  to,  and  the  decision  of  the 
question  will  determine  whether  the  counsel  can  put  any  further  questions  to 
the  witness. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  may  be  heard  upon  that,  I  suppose? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Certainly. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  The  question,  senators,  whether  a  witness  may  be  recalled  is  a 
question  of  the  practice  of  courts.  It  is  a  practice  almost  universal,  unless 
there  is  a  suspicion  of  bad  faith,  to  permit  it  to  be  done,  and  it  is  always  in  the 
discretion  of  the  court.  In  special  circumstances,  where  collusion  is  suspected 
between  the  witness  and  counsel  ibr  wrong  j)urj)oses  adverse  to  the  administra- 
tion of  justice,  a  strict  rule  may  be  laid  down.  Whatever  rule  this  court  in  the 
future  shall  lay  down  as  peremptory,  if  it  be  that  neither  j)arty  shall  recall  a 
witness  that  has  been  once  dismissed  from  the  stand,  of  course  will  be  obliga- 
tory upon  us ;  but  we  are  not  aware  that  anything  has  occurred  in  the  progress 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  523 

of  tlii^  trial   to  intimate   to  couusel   tliat  any  such   rule  had   been   adopted,  or 
would  be  applied  by  this  court. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  j\[r.  President,  on  Saturday  this  took  place :  this 
question  was  asked : 

In  that  interview — 

That  is,  when  the  offer  was  made — 

What  conversation  took  place  between  the  President  and  you  in  regard  to  the  removal  of 
Mr.  Stanton? 

That  question  was  offered  to  be  put,  and  after  argument,  and  upon  a  solemn 
ruling,  twenty-eight  gentlemen  of  the  Senate  decided  that  it  could  not  be  put. 
That  was  exactly  the  same  question  as  this,  asking  for  the  same  conversation 
at  the  same  time.  Then  certain  other  proceedings  Avere  had,  and  after  those 
were  had  the  counsel  waited  some  considerable  time  at  the  table  in  consultation, 
and  then  got  up  and  asked  leave  to  recall  this  witness  this  morning  for  the  pur- 
pose of  putting  questions.  The  Senate  gave  that  leave  and  adjourned.  This 
morning  they  recalled  the  witness,  and  put  such  questions  as  they  pleased,  and 
we  spent  as  many  hours,  as  you  remember,  in  doing  that.  On  Saturday  they 
had  got  through  with  him,  except  that  they  Avanted  a  little  time  to  consider 
whether  they  would  recall  him ;  they  did  recall  him  this  morning,  and  after  get- 
ting through  with  him  the  witness  was  sent  away.  Then  he  was  again  recalled 
to  enable  one  of  the  judges  to  put  a  question,  to  satisfy  his  mind.  Of  course, 
he  was  not  acting  as  counsel  for  the  President  in  so  doing;  that  could  not  be 
supposed  possible.     He  wanted  to  satisfy  his  mind. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  does  the  honorable  manager  mean  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  mean  precisely  what  I  say,  that  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed possible  that  he  was  acting  as  counsel  for  the  President. 

Mr  Johnson.  ]\tr.  Chief  Justice,  if  the  honorable  manager  means  to  impute 
that  in  anything  I  have  done  in  this  trial  I  have  been  acting  as  couusel,  or  in 
the  spirit  of  couusel,  he  does  not  know  the  man  of  whom  he  speaks.  I  am  here 
to  discharge  a  duty  ;  and  that  I  propose  to  do  legally.  And  permit  me  to  say 
to  the  honorable  manager  that  I  know  what  the  law  is  as  well  as  he  does,  and 
it  is  not  my  purpose  in  any  way  to  depart  froni  it. 

Mr.  j\Ianager  Butler.  Again  I  repeat,  so  that  my  language  may  not  be  mis- 
understood, that  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  was  acting  as  counsel  for  the 
President.  Having  put  his  question  and  satisfied  his  mind  of  something  that 
he  wanted  satisfied,  something  that  he  wanted  to  know,  how  can  it  be  that  that 
opens  the  case  to  allow  the  President's  counsel  to  go  into  a  new  examination  of 
the  witness  ?  How  do  they  know,  if  he  is  not  acting  as  counsel  for  the  Presi- 
dent, and  there  is  not  some  understanding  between  them,  which  I  do  not  charge — 
how  can  the  President's  counsel  know  that  his  mind  is  not  satisfied  ?  He  recalled 
the  witness  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  his  own  mind,  and  only  for  that  rea- 
son. I  agree  it  is  common  to  recall  witnesses  for  something  that  has  been  over- 
looked or  forgotten  ;  but  I  appeal  to  the  presiding  ofiicer  that  while — and  I  never 
have  said  otherwise — a  member  of  the  court  who  wants  to  satisfy  himself  by 
putting  some  question  may  recall  a  witness  for  that  purpose,  it  never  is  under- 
stood that  that  having  been  done,  the  case  was  opened  to  the  covtnsel  on  either 
side  to  go  on  and  put  other  questions.  The  court  is  allowed  to  put  the  ques- 
tion, because  it  is  supposed  that  the  judge  wants  to  satisfy  his  mind  on  a  par- 
ticular point.  After  the  judge  has  satisfied  his  mind  on  that  particular  point 
then  there  is  to  be  an  end,  and  it  is  not  to  open  the  case  anew.  I  trust  I  have 
answered  the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland  that  I  meant  no  imputation.  I 
was  putting  it  right  the  other  way. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  am  satisfied,  Mr.  Chief  Ju.-tice  ;  and  I  only  rise  to  say  that 
I  did  not  know  that  the  counsel  proposed  to  ask  any  question,  and  I  agree  with 
the  honorable  manager  that  they  have  no  right  to  do  any  such  thing. 


524  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Ml'-  Chief  Justice,  one  moment  will,  I  think,  show  that 

Mr.  Manager  BixciHAM.  Will  the  gentleman  from  New  York  yield  to  me  a 
single  moment,  without  pretending  to  interrupt  him  ?  Mr.  President,  I  desire, 
on  behalf  of  the  managers,  here,  so  that  there  may  be  no  possible  misunder- 
standing about  it,  to  disclaim,  once  for  all,  that  it  was  either  intended  by  my 
associate,  who  has  taken  his  seat,  or  is  intended  by  the  managers,  at  any  time, 
or  in  any  way,  to  question  the  right  and  the  entire  propriety  of  any  senator 
recalling  any  witness  and  putting  any  question  to  him  that  he  sees  fit.  We  im- 
pute no  improper  motives  to  any  senator  for  doing  so  ;  and  we  wish  it  distinctly 
understood  that  it  is  furthest  from  our  purpose.  But  we  recognize  his  perfect 
right  to  do  so  and  the  entire  propriety  of  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  A  moment's  consideration,  I  tliink,  will  satisfy  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Chief  Justice,  that  the  question  is  not  precisely  of  our  right  to  recall  the  wit- 
ness, but  the  question  of  right,  if  it  be  important  to  be  discussed — and  it  may  be 
in  some  future  applications  of  the  rule — is,  that  when  the  court  have  introduced, 
by  their  right  of  questioning,  new  matter  of  evidence  that  had  previously  been 
excluded,  then  the  counsel  upon  either  side  are  not  obliged  to  leave  that  portion 
of  the  evidence  incomplete  or  without  cross-examination ;  for  some  piece  of  evi- 
dence might  be  drawn  out  that,  as  it  stood,  nakedly,  would  be  prejudicial  to 
one  side  or  the  other,  prejudicial  to  the  side  whose  witness  was  recalled,  if  you 
please ;  and  certainly  it  would  be  competent,  in  the  ordinary  rules  of  examina- 
tion, that  the  counsel  should  be  permitted  to  place  the  whole  of  the  fact  and  the 
truth — Avithin  the  proper  rules  of  evidence,  of  course — before  the  court. 

Mr.  Williams.  If  I  may  be  allowed  to  state,  I  do  not,  of  course,  object, 
under  the  decision  made  by  the  Senate,  to  a  full  answer  to  the  question  pro- 
pounded by  the  senator  from  Maryland ;  but  my  objection  is  made  upon  the 
ground  that  the  Senate  has  repeatedly  decided  that  the  conversations  of  the 
President  were  not  admissible  in  evidence,  and  the  witness  having  answered  the 
question  of  the  senator  from  Maryland,  it  is  not  competent  for  the  counsel  for 
the  President  to  proceed  to  examine  him  upon  that  point,  because  it  is  contrary 
to  the  decision  already  made. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  again  read  both  the  questions,  so 
tbat  the  Senate  may  understand  precisely  what  is  before  it. 

The  Secretary.  The  first  question  was  as  follows : 

When  the  President  tendered  to  you  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  on  the  27th 
of  January,  1H68,  and  on  the  31st  of  the  same  month  and  year,  did  he,  at  the  very  time  of 
makint^  such  tender,  state  to  you  what  his  piu'pose  in  so  doing  was  ? 

The  witness  having  answered  "yes,"  the  next  question  was  : 

State  .wliat  he  said  his  purpose  was. 

The  questioti  now  is  : 

Have  you  answered  as  to  hoth  occasions  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  not  my  question. 

Mr.  Staxbkry.  That  is  mine;  and  I  want  to  say  one  word  as  to  that. 
Notwithstanding  the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland  has  put  this  ques- 
tion, he  has  put  it  about  our  client  and  our  case.  They  belong  to  us.  He 
has  put  it  so  that  a  new  door  is  opened  that  Avas  closed  to  us  before,  and 
the  court  has  gone  into  that  new  evidence  that  was  a  sealed  book  to  us, 
about  whicb  we  could  neither  examine  nor  cross  examine.  That  which  was 
closed  to  us  by  the  decision  of  the  court  on  Saturday,  is  now  opened  by  the 
question  of  the  senator  to-day.  Now,  I  understand  the  doctrine  contended 
for  to  be  that  we  must  take  that  answer,  for  better  or  worse,  to  a  question 
we  did  not  put.  Now,  senators,  if  in  that  answer  the  matter  had  been  con- 
demnatory of  the  President ;  if  the  senator  had  got  as  an  answer  that  the 
President  told  the  witness  expressly  that  he  intended  to  violate  any  law  ;  that 
be  was  acting  in  bad  faith  ;  that  he  meant  to  use  force,  I  am  told  the  doctrine 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  525 

here  now  is,  "  inasmuch  as  it  was  brought  out  by  a  senator,  not  by  yourselves, 
ahhoug-h  it  is  fatal  testimony  to  your  client,  you  cannot  cross-examine  him  one 
word  about  it."  It  is  not  testimony  of  our  asking.  Suppose  it  had  been 
brought  out  by  the  managers,  could  we  not  cross-examine  ?  Suppose  it  is 
brought  out  by  a  senator,  does  that  make  it  any  more  sacred  against  the  pursuit 
of  truth  and  the  sacred  right  of  cross-examination  ?  Does  the  doctrine  of 
estopped  come  here,  that  wherever  any  question  is  answered  upon  the  interroga- 
tory of  a  senator  you  must  take  that  answer,  without  any  opportunity  to  contra- 
dict the  witness  or  to  cross-examine  the  witness  ;  that  that  sacred  right  cannot 
be  exercised ;  that  we  are  estopped  not  by  our  own  act,  not  by  testimony  we 
have  called  out,  but  we  are  estopped  by  the  act  of  another,  and  shut  out  from 
the  pursuit  of  truth  because  a  senator  has  put  the  question  and  the  answer  to 
that  question  is  condemnatory  of  our  client  1  I  say  the  moment  that  door  is 
opened  and  new  testimony  introduced  in  the  cause  we  have  a  right  to  cross- 
examine  the  witness ;  a  right  to  explain  it  if  we  can,  to  contradict  it  if  we  can, 
to  impeach  the  very  witness  who  testifies  to  it  if  we  can.  Every  weapon  that 
a  defendant  has  in  pursuit  of  truth  as  to  testimony  against  him  is  put  into  our 
hands  the  moment  such  a  question  is  put  and  such  a  question  is  answered. 

Mr.  Manager  Bi.\GHAi\i.  Mr.  President,  I  think  senators  cannot  fail  to  have 
observed  the  most  extraordinary  remarks  that  have  just  fallen  from  the  lips  of 
the  honorable  counsel  for  the  President.  It  is  perfectly  apparent  to  intelligent 
men,  whether  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  or  in  these  galleries,  that  they  have 
attempted,  through  this  witness,  to  obtain  the  mere  naked  declaration  of  the 
accused  to  rebut  the  legal  presumption  of  his  guilt  arising  from  his  having  done 
an  unlawful  act. 

I  am  not  surprised  at  the  feeling  Avith  which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  just 
discussed  this  question.  If  I  heard  aright  the  testimony  which  fell  from  the 
lips  of  the  witness,  the  Lieutenant  General,  it  was  testimony  that  utterly  disap- 
pointed and  confounded  the  counsel  for  the  accused.  What  was  it?  Nothing 
was  said,  said  the  witness,  in  the  first  conversation  about  an  appeal  to  the  courts, 
and  finally  this  was  said,  that  it  was  impossible  to  make  up  a  case  by  which  to 
appeal  to  the  courts.  These  declarations  of  the  President,  standing  in  that 
form,  are  not  satisfactory  to  the  counsel.  They  are  brought  out,  to  be  sure, 
upon  the  question  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Maryland ;  but  they  are 
not  satisfiictory  to  the  counsel;  and  now  he  tells  the  Senate  that  he  has  the 
right  to  cross-examine.  To  cross-examine  whom,  sir?  To  cross-examine  his 
own  witness.  To  cross-examine  him  for  what  purpose?  "In  search  of  the 
truth!"  Well,  he  is  in  pursuit  of  the  truth  under  difficulties.  The  witness  has 
already  sworn  to  matter  of  fact  that  shows  the  naked,  bald  falsity  of  the  defence 
interposed  here  by  the  President  in  his  answer,  that  his  only  purpose  in  violat- 
ing the  law  was  to  test  the  validity  of  the  law  in  the  courts.  Why  did  not  he 
test  the  validity  of  the  law  in  the  courts?  It  will  not  do  to  say  to  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  that  he  has  accounted  for  it  in  telling  this  witness  that  the 
case  could  not  be  made  up.  The  learned  counsel  who  has  just  taken  his  seat  is 
too  familiar  with  the  law  of  this  country,  too  familiar  with  the  absolute  adjudi- 
cation of  this  very  case  in  the  Supreme  Court,  to  venture  to  indorse  for  a  mo- 
ment this  utterance  of  his  client  made  to  the  Lieutenant  General  that  it  was 
impossible  to  make  up  a  case.  I  stand  here  and  assert  what  the  learned  coun- 
sel knows  right  well,  that  all  that  was  needful  to  make  iip  a  case  was  for  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  do  just  what  he  did  do  in  the  first  instance, 
to  issue  an  order  directing  Mr.  Stanton  to  surrender  the  office  of  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War  to  "  Lorenzo  Thomas,  whom  he  had  that  day 
appointed  Ir^ecretary  of  War  ad  interim,"  and  to  siirrender  all  the  records  of 
the  oflice  to  him,  to  surrender  the  property  of  the  office  to  him,  and  upon 
the  refusal  of  the  Secretary  of  War  to  obey  his  commandr  through  his  Attor- 
ney General,  who  now  appears  as  his  attorney  in  the  trial  and  defence  of  this 


526  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

case,  to  .suo  out  a  writ  of  qno  tvarranto.  That  is  the  law  which  we  uiulortake 
to  say  is  settled  in  this  case,  notwithstanding  his  statement  to  the  witness 
whom  they  have  called  here.  It  is  settled  in  the  case  of  Wallace  vs.  Ander- 
son, as  the  Senate  will  recollect,  reported  in  5  Wheaton,  page  291.  The 
opinion  of  the  court,  from  which  no  dissent  was  expressed  by  any  member  of 
the  bench,  was  delivered  by  Chief  J  ustice  Marshall,  and  I  will  read  the  opinion  : 

Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court,  that  a  writ  of  quo  warranto 
could  not  be  maintained,  except  at  the  instance  of  the  p^overnment ;  and  as  this  writ  was 
issued  by  a  private  individual,  without  the  authority  of  the  government,  it  could  not  be  sus- 
tained, whatever  might  be  the  right  of  the  prosecutor  or  of  the  person  claiming  to  exercise 
the  office  in  question.     The  information  must,  therefore,,  be  dismissed. 

That  power  was  not  employed  by  the  Executive  through  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral. Let  him  answer  in  some  other  way  than  by  these  declarations,  sought  to 
be  reached  through  a  cross-examination  of  their  own  witness,  why  he  did  not 
follow  up  his  illegal  order  for  the  removal  of  Stanton  and  for  the  appointment 
of  Lorenzo  Thomas  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  by  legally  suing  out  his 
writ  of  quo  warranto  and  trying  the  question  in  the  courts. 

But,  gentlemen  senators,  there  is  something  more  than  that  in  this  case — and 
I  desire  merely  to  refer  to  it  in  passing — that  the  question  which  the  gentle- 
men raise  here  in  argument  now  is,  in  substance  and  in  fact,  whether,  having 
violated  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  in  the  manner  shown 
by  the  testimony  here,  beyond  question,  they  cannot  at  last  strip  the  people  of 
the  power  which  they  retained  to  themselves  by  impeachment — to  hold  such 
malefactors  to  answer  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  interposition  of  ever^  other  tribunal  of  justice  upon  God's  footstool. 
What  has  this  question  to  do  with  the  final  decision  of  the  case  before  the  Sen- 
ate ?  I  say  if  your  Supreme  Court  sat  to-day  in  judgment  upon  this  question 
it  has  no  power  and  can  have  none  over  this  Senate.  The  question  belongs  to 
the  Senate,  in  the  language  of  the  Constitution,  exclusively.  The  words  are 
that  "  the  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments."   • 

The  sole  or  only  power  to  try  impeachments  includes  the  power  to  try  and 
determine  every  question  of  law  and  fact  arising  in  a  case  of  impeachment.  It 
is  in  vain  that  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  or  of  the  circuit  court  or  of 
the  district  court  or  of  any  court  outside  of  this  is  invoked  for  the  decision  of 
any  question  arising  in  this  trial  between  the  people  and  their  guilty  President. 
We  protest,  then,  against  a  speech  that  has  been  made  here  in  this  matter.  We 
protest,  also,  against  the  attempt  here  to  cross-examine  their  own  witness  and 
get  rid  of  the  matter  already  stated  so  truthfully  and  so  fairly  by  the  witness, 
which  clearly  makes  against  their  client  and  strips  him  of  every  f(!ather,  and 
leaves  him  naked  for  the  avenging  hand  of  justice  to  reach  him  without  let  or 
hindrance. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  I  shall  enter  into  no  discussions 
irrelevant  to  this  matter ;  but  we  cannot  consent  to  have  matters  so  misrepre- 
sented. j\Iy  learned  associate,  arguing  upon  a  hypothetical  case  as  to  the 
injustice  of  the  rule  sought  to  be  laid  down  when  it  should  happen  that  the 
evidence  was  injurious  to  a  party,  that  he  should  be  restrictetl  from  cross-exami- 
nation undertook,  by  way  of  argument,  to  influence  the  o{)iiiion  of  the  Si'uate. 
It  had  not  the  remotest  application,  and,  as  must  liave  been  apparent  to  every 
intelligent  observer,  was  not  connected  in  the  least  with  the  actual  evidence 
given.  The  evidence  giv(!n,  if  it  is  agreeable  to  the  managers,  is  extremely 
satisfactory  to  us,  presenting  the  very  j)oint  of  the  in(|uiry  of  the  Lieutenant 
General  to  the  President  why  the  lawyers  could  not  make  up  a  case  without 
bringing  in  an  ad  interim  appointment.  The  answer  of  the  President  was  that 
it  could  not  be  done,  but  when  on  the  effect  of  an  ad  interim  ajjpointment  the 
matter  was  brought  up,  the  case  would  not  stand  half  an  hour,  agreeing  with 


IMPEACEBIENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  527 

Mv.  Manager  Butler  iu  his  hypothetical  case  in  the  note  that  ho  wrote  for  the 
President  to  send  to  the  Senate  : 

I  felt  mj'self  constrained  to  make  this  removal  lest  Mr.  Stanton  should  answer  tlie  infor- 
mation in  the  nature  of  u  quo  warranto,  which  I  intend  the  Attorney  General  shall  file  at  an 
early  day,  by  saying  that  he  holds  the  oitice  of  Secretary  of  War  by  the  appointment  and 
authority  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  which  has  never  been  revoked. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  I  desire,  iu  response  to  tlie  gentleman's 
remarks,  very  briefly  to  state  to  the  Senate  that  instead  of  bettering  his  client's 
case  he  has  made  it  worse  by  his  attempt  to  explain  this  declaration  of  the 
President  to  the  witness  that  it  Avas  impossible  to  make  up  a  case  without  an 
ad  interim  appointment.  I  agree  and  stated  myself  in  the  remarks  which  I 
made  before,  that  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  issue  his  order  of  removal  as 
he  did  issue  it,  and  that  it  was  necessary  he  should  issue  his  order  of  appoint- 
ment to  Lorenzo  Thomas  or  somebody  else  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  as 
he  did  issue  it;  but  now  how  does  the  case  stand  1  Had  he  not  made  an  ad 
interim  appointment  six  months  before  this  conversation  with  the  Lieutenant 
General  ?  Had  he  not  made  an  ad  i^iterivi  appointment  iu  August,  1867,  of 
General  Grant  ?  Ah  !  says  the  gentleman,  he  only  suspended  Mr.  Stautou 
then  under  the  tenure-of-office  act,  and  therefore  the  question  could  not  very 
well  be  raised.  I  have  no  doubt  that  will  be  the  answer  of  the  counsel;  it  is 
all  the  answer  they  can  make;  but,  gentlemen  senators,  how  does  such  an 
answer  stand  with  the  corrupt  answer  put  in  here  by  the  President  that  he  did 
not  make  that  suspension  under  the  tenure-of-otfice  act,  but  under  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  and  by  virtue  of  the  powers  vested  iu  him  by  that 
Constitution  ?  He  cannot  play  "  fast  and  loose"  in  this  way  in  the  presence  of 
the  Senate  and  the  people  of  this  country. 

Why  did  he  not  issue  out  his  writ  of  quo  warranto  in  August,  when  he  had 
his  appointment  of  Secretary  ad  interim,  casting  aside  your  statute,  going  into 
courts,  forestalling' the  power  of  the  people  to  try  him  by  impeachment  for  this 
violation  ot  law,  for  this  unlawful  act,  which  by  the  law  of  every  country  where 
the  common  law  obtains  carries  the  criminal  intent  with  it  on  its  face,  and  which 
he  cannot  talk  from  the  record  by  any  false  statement,  nor  swear  from  the 
record  iu  any  shape  or  form  by  any  mere  declarations  of  his  own. 

One  word  more,  and  I  have  done  with  this  matter.  They  got  in  evidence  of 
what  he  told  Thomas,  and  now  they  want  to  contradict  that  evidence.  After 
the  refusal  of  the  office  to  him  by  Stanton,  after  Stanton  refused  to  obey  Thomas's 
orders,  after  he  had  ordered  Thomas  to  go  to  his  own  place,  and  Thomas  refused 
to  obey  his  orders  and  declared  himself  Secretary  and  his  purpose  to  control 
the  office,  to  take  possession  of  the  records,  and  seize  upon  its  mails,  you  have 
had  offered  here  by  this  defence  the  declarations  of  the  accused  to  Thomas  when 
he  went  back  ^ul  reported  to  him  this  refusal,  "  Go  on,  take  possession  of  the 
office;"  not  "lam  going  to  appeal  to  the  courts,"  not  "  Go*  to  the  Attorney 
General  for  a  writ  of  quo  warranto ;"  there  was  no  intimation  of  that  sort  then; 
but  that  declaration  of  the  accused  to  Lorenzo  Thomas  on  the  night  of  the  21st 
of  February,  after  he  had  committed  this  crime  against  the  laws  and  Constitution 
of  his  country,  is  to  be  got  rid  of  here  to-day  by  his  declaration  at  another  time 
that  they  are  seeking  after  now,  to  the  Lieutenant  General. 

We  are  not  trying  the  President  here  for  having  offered  the  Lieutenant  General 
an  appointment  of  Secretary  ad  interim,  or  an  absolute  appointment  either. 
We  are  trying  the  President  here  for  issuing  an  order,  in  violation  of  law,  for 
the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  another  letter  of  authority,  iu  violation  of  the 
law,  directing  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  take  possession  of  the  War  Department,  its 
records,  and  its  property,  and  to  discharge  the  functions  of  the  office  of  Secretary 
of  War  ad  interim,  iu  utter  contempt  of  the  Constitution,  of  his  own  oath  of 
office,  of  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  solemn  decision  of  the 
Senate.     And  these  gentlemen  come  here  to  get  rid  of  this  matter  in  this  way 


528  IMPEACHMEKT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

by  cross-examining,  to  use  their  own  word,  tlieir  own  witness,  because,  after 
failing  to  get  anytliing  from  him  themselves,  and  the  Senate  having  succeeded 
in  getting  words  from  him  that  do  not  suit  their  purpose,  they  seek  to  get  rid 
of  the  Avhole  matter  by  a  further  examination. 

Mr.  Davis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  ask  for  information  if  the  question  pro- 
pounded by  the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland  has  been  fully  answered] 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Kentucky  will  reduce  his  question  to 
writing. 

Mr.  Davis.  I  do  not  propose 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  requires  that  the  question  shall  be  reduced  to 
writing. 

Mr.  Davis.  I  do  not  projDound  any  question  to  the  witness  at  all.  I  merely 
make  the  suggestion  to  the  Chief  Justice  whether  the  question,  as  drafted  by 
the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland,  has  been  fully  answered  by  the  witness 
or  not  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  impossible  for  the  Chief  Justice  to  reply  to  that 
question.  .  The  witness  only  can  rej)ly. 

The  Witness.  Where  is  my  answer? 

Mr.  Trumbull.  I  ask  is  there  not  a  question  pending  ? 

Mr.  Davis.  I  ask  that  the  question  be  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  explain  the  position  of  thematter 
to  the  Senate.  The  Senator  from  Maryland  desired  that  the  following  question 
should  be  put  to  the  witness,  (G-eneral  Sherman.)  "  When  the  President  ten- 
dered to  you  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  on  the  27th  of  January, 
]86S,  and  on  the  31st  of  the  same  month  and  year,  did  he,' at  the  very  time  of 
making  such  tender,  state  to  you  what  his  purpose  in  so  doing  was  ?"  To  that 
question  the  witness  replied,  "  he  did"  or  "  yes."  That  answer  having  been 
given,  the  senator  from  Maryland  propounded  the  further  question,  "  The  wit- 
ness having  answered  yes,  will  he  state  what  he  said  his  purpose  was  1"  The 
witness  having  made  an  answer  to  that  question  either  partial  or  full,  the  Chief 
Justice  is  unable  to  decide  which,  the  counsel  for  the  Pi'esident  propose  this 
question  :  "  Have  you  answered  as  to  both  occasions  ?"  That  is  the  same  ques- 
tion which  the  senator  from  Kentucky  now  proposes  to  the  Chief  Justice,  and 
which  he  is  unable  to  answer.  The  senator  from  Oregon  (Mr.  Williams)  objects 
to  the  question  proposed  by  the  counsel  for  the  President  upon  the  ground  that 
General  Sherman  having  been  recalled  at  the  instance  of  a  senator,  and  having 
been  examined  by  him,  he  cannot  be  examined  by  counsel  for  the  President. 
The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  that  is  a  matter  entirely  within  the  discretion  of 
the  Senate,  but  that  it  is  usual,  luider  such  circumstances,  to  allow  counsel  to 
proceed  with  their  inquiries  relating  to  the  same  subject-matter. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  President,  1  withdraw  my  objection  to  \his  question. 
When  the  quest*)n  was  orally  put  I  understood  it  to  be  another  and  diflerent 
question.  I  am  willing  a  full  answer  shall  be  given  to  the  question  propounded 
by  the  senator  from  Maryland,  but  object  to  new  questions. 

The  Chief  Ju.stice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question,  and  the  witness 
will  answer. 

The  Secretary.  The  question  is,  ''Have  you  answered  as  to  both  occa- 
sions ?" 

The  Witness.  I  should  like  to  hear  my  answer  as  far  as  it  had  gone. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  move  that  tin;  reporter  read  the  answer. 

The  Chief  Justice.  That  will  be  done. 

Mr.  J.  J.  Murphy,  one  of  the  oflicial  reporters  of  the  Senate,  read  the  previous 
answer  of  the  witness  from  the  short-hand  notes,  as  follows : 

I  intended  to  be  very  precise  and  very  short ;  but  it  appeared  to  me  necc^i.^ary  to  state 
what  I  bcf^iin  to  state — tliut  the  I'resideiit  told  me  tliat  the  H'latioiis  Ix'twceu  him.self  and 
Mr.  Stanton,  and  between  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  other  members  of  tiie  cabinet,  were  such 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  529 

that  be  coukl  not  execute  the  office  which  he  filled  as  President  of  the  United  States  withont 
makiuj:^  provision  ad  interim  for  that  office  ;  that  he  had  the  rijjht  under  tlie  law ;  he  claimed 
to  have  the  ripht;  and  his  purpose  was  to  have  the  office  ailiniuistcred  in  the  interest  of  tlio 
army  and  of  ttic  country  ;  and  he  offered  nie  the  office  in  that  view.  He  did  not  state  to  nie 
then  that  his  purpose  was  to  bring  it  to  the  courts  directly  ;  but  for  the  ptn-pose  of  having 
the  oflice  administered  projjcrly  in  the  interest  of  the  army  and  the  whole  country. 

Mr.  Stani?i;uy.  On  both  occasions,  general,  or  the  other  occasion  ? 

The  Witness.  I  asked  him  why  lawyers  could  not  make  a  case;  that  I  did  not  wish  to 
be  brought  as  an  officer  of  the  army  into  any  controversy. 

Mr.  OoNKLlNG.  Will  3'ou  not  repeat  that  last  answer,  general  ? 

The  Witness.  I  asked  him  why  lawyers  could  not  make  a  case,  and  not  bring  me,  or  an 
officer,  into  the  controversy  ?  His  answer  was,  that  it  was  found  impossible,  or  a  case  could 
not  be  made  up  ;  but,  said  he,  if  we  can  bring  the  case  to  the  CQurts,  it  would  not  stand  half 
an  hour.     I  think  that  is  all  that  he  stated  to  me  then. 

Mr.  Drake.  Now  read  the  pending  question. 

The  Secretary.  The  question  is  :  "Have  you  answered  as  to  both  occa- 
sion.*?." 

The  WiT.NESS.  The  question  first  asked  me  seemed  to  restrict  me  so  close  to 
the  purpose  that  I  endeavored  to  confine  myself  to  that  point  alone.  On  the 
first  day  or  the  first  interview  in  which  the  President  offered  me  the  appoint- 
ment ad  interim  he  confined  himself  to  very  general  terms,  and  I  gave  him  no 
definite  answer.  The  second  interview,  which  was  on  the  afternoon  of  the  30th, 
not  the  3 1st,  was  the  interview  during  which  he  made  the  points  which  I  have 
testified  to.  In  speaking  he  referred  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill  known 
as  the  civil  tenure-of-office  bill,  I  think,  or  the  tenure  of  civil-office  bill ;  and  it 
was  the  constitutionality  of  that  bill  which  he  seemed  desirous  of  having  tested, 
and  which,  he  said,  if  it  could  be  brought  before  the  Supreme  Court  properly, 
would  not  stand  half  an  hour.  We  also  spoke  of  force.  I  first  stated  that  if 
Mr.  Stanton  would  simply  retire,  although  it  was  against  my  interest,  against 
my  desire,  against  my  personal  wishes,  and  against  my  official  wishes,  I  might 
be  willing  to  undertake  to  administer  the  office  ad  interim.  Then  he  supposed 
that  the  point  was  yielded  ;  and  I  made  this  point,  "  Suppose  Mr.  Stanton  do 
not  yield?"  He  answered,  "Oh!  he  will  make  no  objection;  you  present  the 
order,  and  be  will  retire."  I  expressed  my  doubt,  and  he  remarked,  "  I  know 
him  better  than  you  do;  he  is  cowardly."  I  then  begged  to  be  excused  from 
giving  him  an  answer  to  give  the  subject  more  reflection,  and  I  gave  him  ray 
final  answer  in  writing.  I  think  that  letter,  if  you  insist  upon  knowing  my 
views,  should  come  into  evidence,  and  not  parol  testimony  taken  up ;  but  my 
reasons  for  declining  the  office  were  mostly  personal  in  their  nattire. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  with  the  permission  of  the  Senate  I 
desire  to  correct  a  mistake  of  fact.  I  thought  General  Sherman  said  the  3 1st, 
but  it  is  the  30th  of  January,  and  therefore  I  desire  to  have  that  correction 
made  in  my  written  question. 

The  Chief  Justices.  If  there  be  no  objection  that  correction  will  be  made. 
The  30th  will  be  substituted  for  the  31st  in  the  record  of  the  question  of  the 
senator  from  Maryland. 

Mr.  Henderson.  I  desire  to  ask  the  witness  a  question,  which  I  send  to 
the  Chair  in  writijag. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  of  the  senator 
from  JMissouri. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Did  the  President,  on  either  of  the  occasions  alluded  to,  express  to  you  a  fixed  resolution 
or  determination  to  remove  Stanton  from  his  office  '! 

The  Witness.  If  by  removal  is  meant  a  removal  by  force,  he  never  conveyed 
to  my  mind  such  an  impression  ;  but  be  did  most  unmistakably  say  that  he 
could  have  no  more  intercourse  with  him  in  the  relation  of  President  and  Sec- 
retary of  War. 

34  I  P 


530  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  wish  to  put  a  question  to  the  ■witness.  I  send  it  to  the 
Chair. 

The  Chirf  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Michigan. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

You  say  the  President  spoke  of  force.     What  did  he  say  about  force? 

The  Witness.  I  inquired,  "  Suppose  Mr.  Stanton  do  not  yield,  what  then 
shall  be  done  ?"  "  Oh,"  said  he,  "  there  is  no  necessity  of  considering  that 
question  ;  upon  the  presentation  of  an  order  he  will  simply  go  away,"  or 
"  retire." 

Mr.  Howard.  Is  that  a  full  answer  to  the  question  ? 

The  Witness.  I  think  it  is,  sir. 

Mr.  Henderson.  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  submit  another  question.  I  send 
it  to  the  desk. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Missouri. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Did  you  give  any  opinion  or  advice  to  the  President  on  either  of  those  occasions  in  regard 
to  the  legality  or  propriety  of  an  ad  interim  appointment ;  and  if  so,  what  advice  did  you 
give,  or  what  opinion  did  you  express  to  him  ? 

]\Ir.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President,  we  must  object  to  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  has  been  overruled  once  to-day,  I  suppose  the 
Senate  means  to  adhere  to  some  rule. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  honorable  managers  object  to  the  question  being 
answered  t 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham  and  Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  do. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  put  the  question  to  the  Senate 
whether  the  question  proposed  by  the  senator  fi-om  Missouri  is  admissible  and 
should  be  put  to  the  witness. 

The  question  being  pat,  it  was  determined  in  the  negative. 

So  the  question  propounded  by  Mr.  Henderson  was  decided  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  If  no  other  questions  are  sought  to  be  put  to  General  Sher- 
man, I  believe  we  are  through  with  him. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  honorable  managers  desire  to  put  any  ques- 
tions ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  did  not  know  that  the  counsel  for  the  President  had 
anything  to  do  with  this  examination. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  I  have  said  we  are  thj-ough.  We  do  not  propose  to  argue 
that  point. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen,  General  Sherman  desires  to  know  if  you 
are  through  with  him  on  both  sides? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  We  may  desire  to  recall  the  Lieutenant  General 
to-morrow. 

The  Witness.  I  have  a  summons  to  appear  before  your  committee  to-morrow. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  We  must  insist,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  that  the  cross-examination 
must  be  finished  before  the  witness  is  allowed  to  leave  the  stand. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  We  do  not  propose  to  make  any  cross-examination 
at  pnsent. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  No  cross-examination  "at  present!"  We  insist  that  the  cross- 
examination  must  be  made  now  if  it  is  to  be  made  at  all. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Undoubtedly  that  is  the  rule. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  We  submit  that  the  gentlemen  tliemselves  on  Satur- 
day made  an  appeal  for  leave  to  recall  the  witness;  and  for  myself,  and  as  I 
understood  it  to  f)e  for  my  associate  managers,  I  made  no  objection.  It  is  for 
the  Senate  to  determine  whether  we  shall  recall  him  to-morrow. 


IMPEACHMENT    Of    THE    PRESIDENT.  531 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  have  no  deesire  to  be  strict  about  these  rules,  but  we  desire 
that  they  shall  be  equally  strict  on  both  sides. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Undoubtedly  the  general  rule  is  that  if  the  managers 
desire  to  cross-examine  they  must  cross-examine  before  dismissing  the  witness ; 
but  that  will  be  a  question  for  the  Senate  when  General  Sherman  is  recalled. 

]\Ir.  Manager  Butler.  This  witness  has  not  been  called  now  by  the  counsel, 
and  therefore  we  do  not  cross-examine  at  present  about  the  matter  inquired 
of  by  the  court.  The  court's  questions  are  all  very  Avell  ;  we  cannot  interfere 
with  those  ;  we  do  not  propose  to  do  so.  We  will  take  our  own  course  in  our 
own  way. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  And  let  you  know  what  it  is  when  we  get  ready. 

R.  J.  Meigs  recalled. 
By  Mr.  Stanbery  : 

Q.  Have  you  the  docket  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  District  with  you  now  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Will  you  read  the  docket  entries  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs. 
Lorenzo  Thomas  ? 

Mr.  ^lanager  Butler.  Is  that  evidence?  I  have  no  belief  that  the  docket 
entry  of  a  court,  until  the  record  is  made  up,  is  anything  more  than  a  minute 
from  which  the  record  may  be  extended.  I  directed  that  the  record  should  be 
extended  in  this  case  for  the  use  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Sta.xberv.  It  is  not  a  case  in  which  any  record  was  made,  as  the  witness 
has  already  told  us;  but  it  was  a  proceeding  before  a  judge  at  chambers,  and 
the  only  entry  on  the  books  is  the  entry  on  the  docket. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  witness  will  proceed,  unless  the  question  be 
objected  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  objected. 

Mr.  Manager  BiNtiHAM.  We  must  object  to  the  evidence  as  incompetent. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  Presideat  will  please  state  in  writ- 
ing what  they  propose  to  prove. 

The  offer  of  the  counsel  for  the  President  was  reduced  in  writing  in  the  foroi' 
of  a  question  to  the  witness,  as  follows  : 

Have  you  got  the  docket  entries  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs. 
Lorenzo  Thomas,  and  if  so  will  you  produce  and  read  them? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  this  is  apart  of  the  same' 
transaction,  and  is  competent  evidence ;  but  he  will  put  the  question  to  the 
Senate  if  any  senator  desires  it.  [After  a  pause.]  The  witness  will  answer 
the  question. 

The  Witness.  The  examining  magistrate  or  the  judge  took  the  recognizance 
of  General  Thomas  for  his  appearance  on  a  subsequent  day,  and  when  that 
recognizance  was  taken  it  was  put  on  the  docket  of  the  court,  because  there 
might  be  a  scire  facias  upon  it  on  one  supposition,  and  there  might  be  an  indict- 
ment.    Therefore  it  was  put  upon  the  docket  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  Read  the  docket  entries. 

The  Witness.  The  case  is  numbered  5711. 

The  United  States  vs.  Lorenzo  Thomas. 

Warrant  for  his  arrest,  issued  by  Hon.  Chief  Justice  Cartter,  on  the  oath  of  E.  M.  Stan- 
ton, to  answer  the  charge  of  high  misdemeanor  in  that  he  did  unlawfully  accept  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  nd  interim,  February  2-i,  1H68. 

Warrant  served  by  the  marshal  February  22,  18G8. 

Eecognizance  for  bis  appearance  on  the  26th  instant,  February  22,  1868. 

Discharged  by  Chief  Justice  Cartter,  on  the  motion  of  the  defendant's  counsel,.  February 
26,  1868. 

Mr.  Stanbery.  That  is  all. 


532  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  honorable  managers  desire  to  cross-examine  this 
witness  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  nothing  to  ask  of"  this  Avitness,  sir. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  move  that  the  court  adjourn. 

Mr.  Stewart,  On  that  motion  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Maryland  moves  that  the  Senate,  sit- 
ting as  a  court  of  impeachment,  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock.  On  this 
question  the  yeas  and  nays  are  asked  for. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  not  ordered,  one-fifth  of  the  senators  present  not 
sustaining  the  call. 

The  question  being  put  on  the  motion  to  adjourn,  there  were,  on  a  division, 
ayes  24,  noes  IS;  and  the  Senate,  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment, 
adjourned  irntil  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 


Tuesday,  Aj^ril  14,  1S68. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  entered  the  Senate  chamber  at  12 
o'clock  and  5  minutes  p.  m.,  and  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at  arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives appeared  and  took  the  seats  assigned  them. 

The  counsel  for  the  respondent,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Stanbery,  also 
appeared  and  took  their  seats. 

The  presence  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was  next  announced,  and  the 
members  of  the  House,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  headed  by  Mr.  E.  B. 
Washburne,  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by  the  Speaker 
and  Clerk,  entered  the  Senate  chamber,  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  pro- 
vided for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  journal. 

Mr.  Stewart.  I  move  that  the  reading  of  the  journal  be  dispensed  with. 

The  Chief  Justi(;e.  If  there  be  no  objection  the  reading  of  the  journal  will 
be  dispensed  with.     The  Chair  hears  no  objection. 

Mr.  Sumner.  I  send  to  the  Chair  an  order. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  In  answer  to  the  motion  of  the  managers,  that,  under  the  rule  limiting^  the  arsju- 
ment  to  two  on  a  side  unless  otherwise  ordered,  such  other  managers  and  counsel  as  choose 
may  print  and  file  arguments  at  any  time  before  the  argument  of  the  closing  manager. 

The  Chief  Justice.  H'  there  be  no  objection  the  order  will  be  considered 
now. 

Mr.  Con  NESS.  I  object,  Mr.  President. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Objection  is  made.     The  order  will  lie  over  for  one  day. 

Mr  Sumner.  I  beg  leave  most  respectfully  to  inquire  under  what  rule  such 
an  objection  can  be  made. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  stated  on  Saturday  that  in  conduct- 
ing the  business  of  the  court  he  applied,  as  far  as  they  wen;  applicable,  the  gen- 
eral rules  of  the  Senate.  This  has  been  done  upon  several  occasions,  and  when 
objection  has  been  made  orders  have  been  laid  over  to  the  next  day  for 
consideration. 

Mr.  Sumner.  Of  course  it  is  not  for  ine  to  argue  the  question;  but  I  beg  to 
remind  the  Chair  of  the  rule  under  which  this  order  is  moved. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  will  lie  over.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the  Presi- 
dent, you  will  {dease  proceed  with  the  defence, 

Mr.  EvARTS.  jMr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  it  is  our  misfortune  to  be 
obliged  to  state  to  the  court  that  since  the  adjournment  yesterday,  and  not  com- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  533 

ing  to  our  knowledge  until  just  before  we  came  into  court  this  morning,  our 
associate,  Mr.  Stanbery,  is  prevented  by  illness,  Avbicli  confines  bim  Avholly, 
from  attending  upon  tlie  court  to-day.  I  bave  seen  bim,  and  bave- learned  tbe 
opinion  of  bis  pbysician  tbat  be  will  undoubti'dly,  in  expectation,  be  able  to 
resume  bis  duty  witbin  forty-eigbt  bours,  and  tbere  may  be  some  bope  tbat  be 
will  be  able  to  do  so  by  to-morrow.  In  tbe  suddenness  of  tbis  knowledge  to 
us,  and  in  tbe  actual  arrangement  in  reference  to  tbe  proofs,  it  would  be  very 
difficult  for  us,  and  almost  impossible  witb  any  proper  attention  to  tbe  justice 
of  tbe  case,  to  proceed  to-day;  and  we  suppose  tbat  an  indulgence,  at  least  for 
tbe  day,  would  lessen  tbe  cbance  of  longer  procrastination.  Tbe  gentlemen  of 
tbe  Senate  and  tbe  Cbief  Justice  will  be  so  good  as  to  bear  in  mind  tbat  mucli 
of  the  matter  to  be  produced  in  evidence  is  witbin  tbe  personal  knowledge  of 
our  associate,  Mr.  Stanbery,  and  not  witbin  our  own,  and  we  bave  to  say  tbat 
tbe  conduct  of  tbe  proofs  bas  been  accorded  to  bim. 

It  is,  of  course,  not  pleasant  for  us,  and  not  pleasant  for  Mr.  Stanbery,  espe- 
cially, tbat  sucb  an  occasion  as  tbis  sbould  arise  for  tbe  introduction  of  personal 
considerations  ;  but  in  our  best  judgment  we  can  only  present  it  to  tbe  court  iu 
tbe  aspect  I  bave  named,  and  submit  it  to  tbeir  discretion  wbetber  tbe  facility  and 
tbe  indulgence  tbat  may  be  needed  on  our  part  should  be  limited  to  tbis  day  or 
wbetber  it  sbould  extend  over  tbe  two  days  tbat  Ave  suppose  would  assure  the 
restoration  of  Mr.  Stanbery  to  health.  I  saw  Mr.  Stanbery  last  evening,  and, 
although  he  bad  been  a  little  affected  by  a  cold  which  he  had  contracted,  I  sup- 
posed him  to  be,  as  he  supposed  himself  to  be,  in  a  condition  of  health  that  would 
permit  bim  to  go  on  as  usual ;  and  it  was  only  as  we  were  preparing  to  come  to 
court  tbis  morning  tbat  he  himself  was  obliged  to  submit  to  the  confinement  of 
his  pbysician  and  to  inform  us  of  his  situation. 

Mr.  Drake.  Mr.  President,  I  would  ask  a  question  of  tbe  counsel  for  tbe 
defence. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  tbe  question  proposed  by  tbe 
senator  from  Missouri. 

The  Secretary  read  tbe  question,  as  follows  : 

Cauuot  the  day  be  occupied  by  counsel  for  tbe  respondent  in  giving  in  documentary  evi- 
dence ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  cannot,  as  we  understand  the  situation  of  tbe  proofs  and  our 
duty  in  regard  to  them. 

Mr.  Howe.  Mr.  President,  I  move  tbat  tbe  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of 
impeachment,  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

Tbe  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Tbe  Chief  Justice.  The  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  stands 
adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 


Wednesday,  April  15,  1S68. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  took  the  chair. 

Tbe  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  tbe  impeachment  on  tbe  part  of  tbe  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  counsel  for  tbe  respondent,  except  Mr.  Stanbery,  appeared  and 
took  tbe  seats  assigned  them  respectively. 

Tbe  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  in  Committee  of  tbe  Whole, 
preceded  by  Mr.  Wasbburne,  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied  by 
the  Speaker  and  Clerk,  appeared  and  were  conducted  to  tbe  seats  provided  for 
them. 

Tbe  Chief  Justice.  Tbe  Secretary  will  read  the  journal  of  yesterday's 
proceedings. 


534  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Secretary  read  tlie  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  of  the  Senate 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  first  business  in  order  is  the  consideration  of  the 
order  submitted  by  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sumner]  yesterday. 

Mr.  SuM.\BR.  1  should  like  to  have  it  reported. 

The  Chikf  JusTict;.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  In  answer  to  the  motion  of  the  managers,  that,  under  the  rule  limiting  the  argu- 
ment to  two  on  a  side,  "unless  otherwise  ordered,"  such  other  managers  and  counsel  as 
choose  may  print  and  file  arguments  at  any  time  before  the  argument  of  the  closing  manager. 

The  Chief  Justfce.  The  question  is  on  agreeing  to  the  order. 

Mr,  Edmunds.  I  move  to  amend  the  order  so  that  it  will  read,  "  May  print 
and  file  arguments  at  any  time  before  the  argument  of  the  opening  manager 
shall  be  concluded,"  iu  order  that  the  counsel  for  the  defence  may  have  an 
opportunity  to  see  what  arguments  they  are  to  reply  to. 

Mr.  SuM.\ER.  I  have  no  objection  to  that. 

Mr.  JoHiN'SON.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  order  as  proposed  to  be  amended. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order. 

The  Secretary.  The  order  submitted  reads  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  Iu  answer  to  the  motion  of  the  managers,  that,  under  the  rule  limiting  the  argu- 
ment to  two  on  a  side,  unless  otherwise  ordered,  such  other  managers  and  counsel  as  choose 
may  print  and  file  arguments  at  any  time  before  the  argument  of  the  closing  manager. 

It  is  proposed  to  strike  out  the  words  "argument  of  the  closing  manager," 
and  insert  "argument  of  the  opening  manager  shall  be  concluded." 

Mr.  EvART.s.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  may  we  be  allowed  to  make  a  suggestion  iu 
rcfftence  to  this  order? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Certainly. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  The  amendment  offered  and  accepted  places,  I  suppose,  the 
proper  restriction  upon  the  arguments  to  be  furnished  in  print  on  the  part  of  the 
managers.  That  puts  the  matter  in  proper  shape,  I  suppose,  as  regards  the 
printed  briefs  that  may  be  put  iu  on  the  part  of  the  managers ;  that  is  to  say, 
that  they  shall  be  filed  before  we  make  our  reply.  On  our  part,  however,  it 
would  be  proper  that  we  should  have  the  liberty  of  filing  the  briefs  at  any  time 
befiire  the  closing  manager  makes  his  final  reply,  as  a  part  of  our  new  briefs  may 
be  in  rejily  to  the  new  briefs  that  are  put  in  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President  and  senators,!  desire  to  say,  in  I'egard 
to  the  remark  which  has  just  been  made  by  the  honorable  gentleman  on  behalf 
of  the  accused,  that  it  would  seem,  if  the  order  be  entered  as  he  suggests,  that 
additional  arguments  made  by  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  President  need  not  be 
filed  until  the  close  of  the  arguments  on  behalf  of  the  accused  made  orally  to 
the  Senate,  the  repliant  on  behalf  of  tlie  Congress  of  the  United  States  and  of 
the  people  would  have  no  oj)portunity  to  see  those  arguments  not  delivered,  and 
therefore  could  not  reply  to  them  I  would  suggest  that  the  order  as  it  stands 
is  right.  It  gives  the  counsel  for  the  President  the  opportunity  to  review  what 
may  be  filed  before  they  argue,  and  it  gives  the  counsel  for  the  people  the  oppor- 
txmity  to  review  before  he  argues  whatever  may  be  filed  here  on  behalf  of  the 
President. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Undoubtedly  there  are  inconveniences  in  this  enlargement  of 
the  rule,  however  applied;  but  there  seems  to  be  an  equality  in  requiring  each 
side  to  furnish  its  arguments  in  time  to  have  replying  counsel  answer  them; 
and  the  same  rule  upon  my  suggestion  would  be  apj)lied  to  us  that  by  this 
present  amendment  is  applied  to  the  managers  for  the  impeachment,  for  they 
are  not  required  to  file  their  additional  briefs  except  at  the  very  moment  that 
they  close  their  oral  argument,  and  then  we  arc  obliged  to  commence  our  oral 
argument. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  I  desire  to  say  on  this  molioa 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  535 

that  it  was  agreed  between  the  counsel  for  the  President  that  the  three  of  our 
mimher  who  have  hitherto  managed  the  case  should  take  upon  themselves  the 
continuous  management  and  the  argument  of  the  case  before  the  Senate.  In 
consequence  of  the  imputation  made  by  the  managers,  that  we  desired  unneces- 
sarily to  consume  the  time  of  the  Senate,  those  of  us  who,  under  this  arrange- 
ment, had  not  intended  to  argue  the  cause  did  not  intend,  either  by  ourselves  or 
through  others,  to  make  any  application  to  the  Senate  for  an  enlargement  of  the 
rule ;  but,  inasmuch  as  that  application  has  been  made  in  behalf  of  the  mana- 
gers, I  desire  to  say  to  the  Senate  that  if  we  are  permitted  to  argue  the  cause  I 
think  it  would  be  more  fair  to  the  two  counsel  who  did  not  expect  to  argue  the 
case  to  permit  us  to  make  an  extemporaneous  argument  before  the  Senate.  We 
have  not  made  any  preparation  whatever  in  view  of  written  arguments.  We 
suppose,  though  we  do  not  know  how  the  fact  is,  that  the  managers  on  the  part 
of  the  House,  who  have  had  this  subject  before  them  for  a  much  longer  period 
than  we  have  had,  are  much  more  familiar  with  this  subject  and  are  better  pre- 
pared with  written  addresses  than  we  are,  so  that  if  the  rule  is  to  be  extended  I 
respectfully  ask  the  Senate  to  allow  us  to  address  the  Senate  in  such  mode, 
either  oral  or  written,  as  we  may  desire.  I  beg  leave  to  say  to  the  Senate  that 
while  I  do  not,  speaking  for  myself,  expect  to  be  able  to  interest  the  Senate  as 
much  as  the  learned  gentlemen  to  whom  the  management  of  the  cause  has  been 
hitherto  confided  on  the  part  of  the  President,  yet,  as  I  reside  in  the  President's 
own  State,  as  I  have  practiced  my  profession  in  his  town,  the  town  of  his 
domicile,  for  the  last  thirty  years,  and  as  he  saw  proper  to  ask  my  services  in 
his  behalf,  and  as  I  fully  concur  with  him  in  the  leading  measures  of  his  admin- 
istration, I  desire,  if  I  am  heard  at  all,  to  be  heard  in  the  mode  which  I  have 
suggested. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  I  offer  the  following  as  a  substitute  for  the  order  now  pending. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  substitute  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  California. 

The  Secretary  read  it,  as  follows  : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  "  ordered,"  and  insert : 

That  the  twenty-first  rule  be  so  amended  as  to  allow  as  many  of  the  managers  and  of  the 
counsel  for  the  President  to  speak  on  the  final  argument  as  shall  choose  to  do  so:  Prodded, 
That  not  more  than  four  days  on  each  side  shall  be  allowed ;  but  the  managers  shall  make 
the  opening  and  the  closing  argument. 

Mr.  Drake.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  Manager  Bout  WELL.  I  should  like  to  have  the  substitute  read  once  more. 

The  Chief  Justice.     The  Secretary  will  read  the  proposed  substitute. 

The  Secretary  again  read  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Does  the  honorable  manager  desire  to  address  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell    No,  sir. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  is  on  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  sen- 
ator from  California. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  19,  nays  27  ;  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Cameron,  Conness,  Cragin,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fowler,  Harlan,  Henderson, 
Hendricks,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Kanisay,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Trumbull,  Van 
Winkle,  Willey,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 19. 

Nays— Messrs.  Anthony,  Buckalew,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkliug,  Davis,  Drake, 
Edmunds,  Ferry,  Frelin;^'huysen,  Howard,  Howe,  Johnson,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ross,  Saulsbury, 
Sunmer,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Vickers,  and  Williams — 27. 

Not  votinc; — Messrs.  Bayard,  Corbett,  Fessendeu,  Grimes,  Norton,  Nye,  Sprague,  and 
Wade— 8. 

So  the  substitute  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Doolittle.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  prefer  altogether  oral  arguments  to 


530  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

tlicpo  printed  ones,  and  T  submit  the  following  as  a  substitute,  understanding 
that  thf^re  ai'e  six  managers  on  the    part  of  the  House   and  four  couii.-^el  for  the 

respnudent.      ["Order!"     "Order!"]      I  have    drawn   au    order    which 

[•'Order!"  "Order!"] 

The  OiiiKF  Justice.  Order!   Order!     There  can  be  no  debate. 

Mr.  DooLiTTLK.  Wliich  I  ask  to  have  rwid. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  amendment  proposed  by 
tl)e  senator  from  Wisconsin. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  "ordered,"  and  insert : 

Tliat  upou  the  final  argfuuient  two  inauagers  of  the  House  open,  two  coun:?el  for  the 
respondent  reply ;  that  two  other  manat^ers  rejoin,  to  be  followed  by  two  other  counsel  for 
the  respondent;  and  they  iu  turn,  to  be  followed  by  two  other  managers  of  the  House,  who 
shall  conclude  the  argument. 

Mr.  Drake.  1  move  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  whole  proposition, 
together  with  the  substitute. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Missouri  moves  the  indefinite  post- 
ponement of  the  order  and  the  proposed  substitute. 

Mr.  SUiM.VER.  Let  us  have  the  yeas  and  nays  on  that. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  34,  nays 
15  ;  as  follows  :  * 

Yf,as — Messrs.  Anthony,  Buckalew,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkliug,  Conuess,  Corbett,  Davis, 
Dixon,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fessenden,  Grimes,  Harlan,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  How- 
ard, Howe,  Johnson,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maim^  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Patterson  of 
New  Hampsiiire,  Pomeroy,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams, 
and  Yates — 'M. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron.  Cattell,  Cragin,  Doolittle;  Fowler,  Freliuglniyseu,  McCreery, 
Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ramsey,  Sumner,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  and 
Wilson — 1.5. 

Not  votixg — Messrs.  Bayard,  Norton,  Nye,  Spragne,  and  Wade — 5. 

So  the  order  and  substitute  were  indefinitely  postponed. 
Mr.  Ferry.  I  now  submit  an  order  on  which  1  desire  action. 
The  Chief  .Iustice.    The  Secretary  will  read  the  order  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Connecticut. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Ordered,  That  the  twelfth  rule  be  so  modified  as  that  the  hour  of"  the  day  at  which  the 
Senate  shall  sit  upon  the  trial  now  pending  shall  be,  unless  otherwise  ordered,  at  1 1  o'clock 
forenoon ;  and  that  there  shall  be  a  recess  of  thirty  minutes  each  day,  commencing  at  2 
o'clock  p.  m. 

The  Chief  Justice.  This  order  is  for  present  consideration  unless  objected  to. 

The  Chief  Justice  put  the  question,  and  declared  that  the  noes  appeared  to 
have  it. 

Mr.  Thayer,  Mr.  Drake,  and  others  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they 
were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  24,  nays  26,  as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattoll,  Chandler,  .Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Ferry,  Frelinghnysen,  Harlan,  Jloward,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill 
of  Vermont,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Williams,  and  Wilson — 'J4. 

Nays — Messrs.  Antliony,  I'.ayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Fessen- 
den, Fowler,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnsau,  McCreery,  M(|iton,  I'atterson  of  New 
Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  I'omcroy,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van 
Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  and  Yates — 2(). 

Not  vo'I'INc— Messrs.  Norton,  Nye,  Spiague,  and  Wade — 4. 

So  the  order  was  rejected. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the  President,  please  proceed 
with  the  defence. 

Mr.  Evabts.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  although  I  am  not  able  to 
announce,  as  I  should  be  very  glad  to  do,  that  our  associate,  Mr.  Stanbery,  had, 
according  to  his  hopes,  been  able  to  come  out  to-day,  yet  I  am  happy  to  say 
that  he  is  quite  convalescent,  and  cannot  be  long  interrupted  from  giving  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  537 

proper  attontion  to  the  proper  conduct  of  the  case.  Under  these  circumstances, 
and  from  a  desire  to  do  whatever  we  may  properly  do  in  advancing  the  trial  of 
the  cause,  we  propose,  with  the  permission  of  the  court,  to  proceed  to-day  in 
putting  in  the  documentary  evidence,  which  will  take  a  very  considerable  time, 
and  probably  we  shall  not  wish  to  be  called  upon  to  proceed  with  any  oral  tes- 
timony until  to-morrow,  when  we  shall  be  happy  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  desire  to  bring  before  the  Senate  the  nom- 
ination sent  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  Senate  on  the  21st  of 
February,  as  I  am  instructed,  of  Hon.  Thomas  Ewing  for  the  office  of  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War.  We  wish  the  executive  clerk  to  be  instructed  to 
produce  that,  in  order  that  we  may  put  it  in  evidence. 

Mr,  CoNKLiNG.  Mr.  President,  I  beg  to  say  that  counsel  is  entirely  inaudible 
here. 

Mr.  Curtis.  My  request,  senators,  was  that  the  executive  clerk  might  be 
instructed  to  bring  in  and  exhibit  ^lere  in  evidence  the  nomination  sent  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  under  the  date  of  the  21st  of  February  last,  as  I 
am  instructed,  the  nomination  of  Hon.  Thomas  Ewing  for  the  place  of  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War. 

The  Chief  Ji'Stice.  The  Chief  Justice  is  informed  by  the  Secretary  that 
the  injunction  of  secrecy  has  not  been  removed  from  this  proceeding.  It  will 
be  necessary  that  it  should  be  removed. 

Mr  Johnson.  Does  that  apply  to  a  nomination? 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  ask  unanimous  consent  to  say,  if  I  am  permitted,  on  that 
point 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection,  the  senator  can  proceed  by 
unanimous  consent. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  desire  to  say  that  under  the  new  rules  the  fact  of  a  nomina- 
tion being  made,  it  is  provided,  shall  not  be  a  secret  communication,  and  hence 
I  think  there  can  be  no  impropriety  in  ordering  the  production  of  the  paper. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  was  so  instructed  on  inquiry,  and  supposed  no  motion  to 
remove  the  injunction  of  secrecy  was  nece&sary. 

Mr.  Sher.man.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  if  a  motion  is  necessary,  I  will  move  that 
the  executive  clerk  be  sworn  as  a  witness  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  With  the  consent  of  the  Chief  Justice  I  will  read  the  fortieth 
rule,  recently  adopted  : 

All  intbruiation  or  remarks  concerning  the  character  or  qualifications  of  any  person  nomi- 
nated by  the  President  to  otHce  shall  be  kept  a  secret.  But  the  fact  that  a  nomination  has 
been  made  shall  not  be  regarded  as  a  secret. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  executive  clerk  will  be  sworn. 

D.  W.  C.  Clarke  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  document  you  have  before  you  1 

A.  I  have  th6  original  nomination  by  the  President  of  Thomas  Ewing,  senior, 
to  be  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War. 

Q.  Will  you  please  to  read  it  ?  . 

A.  The  witness  read  as  follows  : 
To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

I  nominate  Thomas  Ewing,  senior,  of  Ohio,  to  be  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

Washington,  D.  C,  February  22,  1868. 

Q.  On  what  day  was  that  actually  received  by  you  ? 

A.  On  the  22d  of  February. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Now,  I  desire  to  put  in  evidence,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  a  copy  of 
the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,' which  bears  date  on  the  24th  of  February,  1868.     I  have  the  printed 


538  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

copy,  wliicli  is  the  authorized  copy.     I  suppose  it  will  not  be  objected  that  we 
have  not  obtained  it  from  the  proper  source  1 

3Ir.  Manager  BuTLER.  The  mere  vehicle  of  proof,  Mr.  President,  will  not  be 
objected  to ;  but  the  proof  itself  will  be,  for  a  very  plain  reason.  It  was  after 
the  President  was  impeached  by  the  House,  and,  of  course,  it  is  his  declaration 
attempted  to  be  put  in.  A  declaration  by  him,  after  he  was  impeached,  whether 
made  to  the  Senate  or  anybody  else,  it  seems  to  us,  cannot  be  evidence. 

The  exact  order  of  time,  if  it  may  not  be  in  the  mind  of  senators,  was  this  : 
on  the  21st  of  February  a  resolution  was  offered  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives looking  to  the  impeachment  of  the  President,  bringing  it  before  the  house ; 
on  the  22d  it  was  acted  on  and  actually  voted.  Impeachment  was  actually 
voted  on  the  22d.  Then  intervened  Sunday,  the  23d.  Any  message  sent  ou 
the  24th,  therefore,  must  have  been  known  to  the  President  to  have  been  after 
the  impeachment. 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  will  be  remembered  that  tlJe  honorable  managers  put  in  evi- 
dence in  the  course  of  their  proceedings  a  resolve  passed  by  the  Senate  to  which 
this  message  is  a  response  ;  so  that  the  question  is,  whether  the  honorable  man- 
agers can  put  in  evidence  a  resolve  of  the  Senate  transmitted  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States  in  reference  to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  and  the  Senate 
will  refuse  to  receive  the  reply  which  the  President  made  to  that  resolve.  That 
is  the  question  which  is  now  before  the  court. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  only  to  say,  Mr.  President,  that  that  is  an  argu- 
ment to  the  prejudice,  and  not  to  the  law.  Suppose  he  offers  his  answer  here 
to-day,  is  that  to  be  received  as  evidence  1  This  message  is  said  to  be  the 
answer  to  the  resolve  of  the  Senate.  I  pray  you  to  remember  that  our  learned 
friends  insist  that  the  rules  of  law  should  govern.  Will  they  dare  to  say  to  the 
Senate  that  they  ever  heard  of  a  case  where,  after  indictment  of  the  criminal, 
the  respondent  was  allowed  to  put  in  evidence  his  statement  of  his  defence?  If 
so,  when  is  that  right  to  cease  ?  We  put  in  the  resolve  because  it  was  a  part  of 
the  transaction  of  removing  Mr.  Stanton,  made  before  the  impeachment  was 
determined  upon.  We  cannot  put  in  his  declarations  down  to  to-day.  That  is 
a  familiar  rule  of  law.  They  cannot.  I  only  ask  the  Senate  to  consider  it  as 
a  precedent  hereafter,  as  well  as  being  a  great  wrong  upon  the  people,  that  after 
they  indict — if  you  use  that  word — after  they  impeach  an  officer,  then  he  cau 
send  in  a  message  which  shall  be  taken  as  evidence  for  him. 

Mr.  Eva  UTS.  ]\Ir.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  the  learned  manager  asks 
whether  we  dare  do  something.  We  have  not  been  in  the  habit  of  considering 
the  measure  for  the  conduct  of  forensic  disputations  to  be  a  question  of  daring. 
We  are  not  in  the  habit  of  applying  such  epithets  to  opponents,  nor,  hitherto, 
of  receiving  them  from  them.  The  measure  of  duty  of  counsel  to  the  law  and 
the  facts  is  the  measure  we  shall  strive  to  obey,  and  not  the  measure  of  daring, 
if  for  no  other  reason,  fur  this,  that  on  the  rule  of  law  and  fact  and  evidence  we 
might,  perhaps,  expect  sometimes  a  superiority,  but  on  the  measure  of  daring, 
never. 

Now,  this  ((ucstion  arises  thus  :  is  the  learned  manager  entirely  right  in  say- 
ing that  the  impeachment  was  voted  on  the  22d1  The  22d  was  Saturday,  and, 
unless  I  am  mistaken,  the  vote  was  not  taken  until  Monday. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  was  entirely  right — on  Saturday.  The  vote  was 
taken  on  the  22d  of  February. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  That  is,  that  articles  should  be  brought  in.  The  articles,  how- 
ever, were  not  voted  until  the  24th. 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLER.  The  articles  could  not  be  prepared  until  some  time 
afterward. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  I  am  merely  stating  a  fact,  not  complaining.  They  were  found 
soon  enough.  Now,  it  is  said  that  because  the  vote  that  impeachment  should 
p*-oceed  was  taken  ou  the  22d,  tliut  impairs  the  credit  or  the  admissibility  of  the 


IMPEACHMENT   OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  539 

piece  of  evidence  that  is  laid  before  the  Senate.  ]*«[y  h-arned  associate  has  dis- 
tinctly told  the  situation  of  the  matter.  Perhaps  both  of  the!?e  transactions 
were  public  at  the  time,  or  were  made  public  soon  afterward.  This  message,  the 
injunction  of  secrecy  in  respect  to  which  has  been  removed,  might  be  within  the 
range  of  recourse  on  the  one  side  or  the  other  for  argument,  and  for  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  court.  But  our  learned  opponents  have  j)ut  in  the  language  of  the 
resolution  of  the  Senate.  Exactly  what  bearing  that  bas  as  part  of  the  res  gestce 
of  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  which  had  taken  place,  so  far  as  the  criminality 
of  the  President  was  concerned,  before  this  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Senate, 
it  was  not  easy  to  see.  It  was,  however,  received  as  proper  evidence.  The 
one  reason  that  we  did  not  consider  it  objectionable  was  that  we  supposed,  as  a 
matter  of  course  and  of  right,  that  this  message,  which  is  an  answer  of  that  reso- 
lution, upon  the  introduction  of  the  topic  by  the  resolution  being  offered  in  evi- 
dence, ■would  be  admissible  in  itself  We  submit,  therefore,  that  on  every  prin- 
ciple, both  of  law  and  of  discretion,  if  it  may  be  so  said,  in  regard  to  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  record  upon  the  point,  this  message  of  the  President  should  be 
allowed  to  be  read  and  given  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  simply  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to 
the  fact  that  whether  it  is  a  matter  of  daring  or  professional  knowledge,  neither 
of  the  counsel  has  stated  any  possible  precedent.  I  desire  also  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Senate  to  the  fact,  so  that  the  counsel  may  never  be  in  doubt  here- 
after what  was  the  legal  effect  of  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  in  our  minds, 
that  we  put  in  that  resolution  to  show  that,  notwithstanding  the  resolution  of 
the  Senate  served  on  the  President  at  eleven  o'clock  at  night  on  the  night  of  the 
21st,  he  still  went  on  and  treated  this  Lorenzo  Thomas  as  Secretary,  and  took 
him  into  his  cabinet  consultation,  and  Lorenzo  Thomas  Avas  recognized  after 
that  by  him  as  the  Secretary  ad  interim,  and  after  that  Lorenzo  Thomas  breath- 
ing out  his  own  designs  to  take  possession  of  the  office  by  force.  It  was  in 
order  to  show  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  determined  to  dis- 
obey the  law  of  the  land,  that  it  was  known  to  him — the  Senate  served  it  upon 
him  for  the  purpose  of  having  him  know  it,  and  did  not  leave  it  to  the  slow 
channels  of  communication  in  print,  but  served  a  certified  copy  on  him  to  stay 
his  hand,  and  he  refused  to  stay  his  hand. 

Now,  can  it  be  that  a  prepared  argument  after  that,  and  after  he  was  impeached 
by  the  House  of  Representatives,  can  be  put  in  evidence  ?  One  ounce  of  action 
on  his  part  in  obedience  to  the  law  and  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  would  have 
been  a  great  deal  better  than  pages  of  argument ;  but  there  was  none.  The 
gentlemen  will  not  use  the  word  "  dare,"  for  they  would  dare  do  all  that  good 
lawyers  would  dare  do  in  favor  of  their  client,  but  I  will  say  the  gentlemen 
have  not  shown  a  single  legal  position  upon  which  this  can  stand. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Tlie  counsel  for  the  President  will  please  put  in  writing 
what  they  propose  to  prove. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  sent  the  Clerk  to  look  at  the  House  Journal 
to  correct  us  if  we  are  wrong. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  will  delay  the  question,  then,  somewhat. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  report  of  the  committee  was  made  on  the  22d, 
All  of  us  were  of  opinion  that  the  resolution  was  passed  on  the  22d.  We  think 
we  are  right ;  but  we  will  make  that  certain.  ' 

After  the  lapse  of  a  few  minutes — 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  find,  Mr.  President,  on  examination,  the  state  of 
the  record  is  this:  that  on  the  21st  of  Februaiy  a  resolution  was  proposed  for 
impeachment  and  referred  to  a  committee;  on  liie  22d  the  committee  reported, 
and  that  was  debated  through  the  22d  and  into  JNfonday.  the  24th,  and  the  actual 
vote  was  taken  on  Monday,  the  24th. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Late  iu  the  afternoon — .'»  o'clock  in  the  afternoon ;  so  that  I  was 
right  in  the  fact.     Is  there  any  farther  objection  made  now? 


540  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

^Ir.  ^Manager  Butlkr.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Mauajjer  BiNGMAM.  I  desire  to  state  the  reasons  why  wp.  insist  npon  this 
objection.  The  House  of  Representatives,  as  appears  by  the  Journal  which  has 
now  been  furnished  us,  on  the  22d  of  February,  through  its  committee,  reported 
"  that  Andrew  Johnson  be  impeached  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  The 
discussion  proceeded  on  that  day.  On  the  day  preceding,  however,  the  21st  of 
February,  it  appeared  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  is  already  in 
evidence  from  the  Journal  of  the  Senate  itself,  proceeded  to  consider  another 
message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  which  he  had  reported  to  the 
Senate  that  he  had  removed  from  the  Department  of  War  Edwin  M.  Stanton, 
then  Secretary  of  War,  by  the  previous  action  of  the  Senate.  The  Senate 
having  refused  to  concur  in  the  suspension,  refused  to  acquiesce  in  the  reasons 
assigned  by  the  President  under  the  tenure-of-office  act.  Having  given  the 
President  notice  thereof,  the  President  thereupon  proceeds,  after  this  notice,  to 
remove  him  and  to  appoint  a  Secretary  of  War  ad  ialvrlm,  in  direct  contraven- 
tion of  the  express  words  of  the  act  itself  and  of  the  action  of  the  Senate.  On 
that  day,  the  21st  of  February,  the  Senate,  it  seems,  considered  the  action  of  the 
President  in  this  matter  of  removal  and  in  this  matter  of  appointment  of  the 
head  of  a  department  in  direct  contravention  of  the  prohibitions  of  existing  law 
and  of  the  action  of  the  Senate  under  it  and  the  notice  which  it  had  served  on 
the  President. 

On  that  night,  as  the  record  also  shows,  the  21st  of  February,  186S,  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States  passed  a  resolution  reciting  the  action  of  the  President 
in  the  premises,  to  wit,  his  removal  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  his  appointment  of 
a  Secretary  ad  interim,  and  declaring  by  solemn  resolve  that  under  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  United  States  the  President  had  no  power  to  make  the 
removal  or  to  make  the  appointment.  That  was  the  action  of  the  Senate,  which 
has  been  given  iu  evidence  here  in  support  of  the  prosecution.  It  was  all  con- 
cluded, as  the  Senate  will  notice  from  what  I  have  said,  on  the  21st  aud  22d  of 
February,  1868.  My  impression  is  that  the  notice  was  served  on  the  night  of 
the  21st,  but,  that  I  may  not  make  a  mistake  in  this  matter,  I  say  it  was  not 
served  later  than  the  22d  day  of  February. 

Now,  what  takes  place  ?  Here  is  a  presentment  made  on  the  21st  or  22d  day 
of  February,  1SG8,  against  this  President  before  the  grand  inquest  of  the  nation, 
and  he  seeks  to  put  iu  a  declaration  made  after  presentment  made,  which  is  cer- 
tainly tantamount  to  a  warrant  for  his  arrest,  for  from  that  moment  he  was  within 
the  power  of  the  people.  Although  he  fled  to  the  remotest  ends  of  the  earth 
he  could  nevt-r  stop  for  a  moment  the  pi'ogress  of  this  inquiry  to  final  judgment, 
although  personal  process  never  reached  him.  It  is  so  provided  in  the  text  of 
your  Constitution.     It  is  to  be  challenged  by  no  man. 

After  these  proceedings  had  been  thus  instituted,  two  days  after  the  fact  of 
the  action  of  the  Senate,  and  three  days  after  the  fact  of  his  commission  of  the 
crime,  he  enters  upon  the  task  of  justifying  himself  before  the  nation  for  a  vio- 
lation of  its  laws,  for  a  violation  of  its  Constitution,  for  a  violation  of  his  oath 
of  office,  for  his  defiance  of  the  Senate,  for  his  defiance  of  the  people,  by  send- 
ing a  message  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  24th  day  of  February, 
18(38.  What  is  it,  senators  ?  Is  it  any  more  than  a  volunteer  declaration  of 
the  criminal,  after  the  fact,  in  his  own  behalf?  Does  it  alter  the  case  in  law  1 
Does  it  alter  the  case  in  the  reason  or  judgment  of  any  man  living,  either  within 
the  Senate  or  out  of  the  Senate,  that  Ik;  cliose  to  put  his  declaration  in  his  own 
defence  in  writing?  The  law  makes  no  sucli  distinctions.  I  undertake  to  assert 
it  here,  regardh'ss  of  any  attempt  to  contradict  my  statement,  that  there  is  no 
law  that  enabhiS  any  accused  criminal,  after  the  fact,  to  make  declarations,  cither 
orally  or  in  writing,  either  by  message  to  the  Senate  or  a  speech  to  a  mob,  to 
acquit  himself  or  to  affect  iu  any  manner  his  crinunality  before  the  tribunals  of 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  541 

justice,  or  to  make  evidence  wliioh   shall  be  admitted  under  any  form  of  law 
upon  his  own  motion  to  justify  his  own  criminal  conduct. 

1  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  every  authority  wliich  the  gentlemen  can  bring 
into  court  regulating  the  rule  of  evidence  in  procedures  of  this  sort  is  directly 
against  the  proposition,  and  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  is  a  written  declaration 
made  bv  the  accused  voluntarily,  after  the  fact,  in  his  own  behalf.  I  read  for 
the  information  of  the  Senate  the  testimony  touching  this  fact  of  the  service  of 
the  notice  of  the  action  had  by  the  Senate  upon  the  conduct  of  the  President 
whereof  he  stands  accused  before  the  Senate.  It  is  as  follows.  On  page  109 
of  the  trial  Mr.  McDonald  testified  : 

An  attested  copy  of  the  foregoing  resolution  was  delivered  by  me  into  the  liands  of  the 
President  of  the  LTuited  States  at  his  office  iu  the  Executive  Mansion  at  10  o'clock  p.  m.  on 
the  21st  of  February,  1868. 

On  the  24th  of  February,  three  days  afterward,  he  volunteers  a  written  declar- 
ation which  he  now  proposes  to  make  evidence  in  his  own  behalf  before  this  tri- 
bunal of  justice.  Of  course  it  is  evidence  for  no  purpose  whatever,  except  for 
the  purpose  of  exculpating  him  from  the  criminal  accusation  preferred  against 
him.     It  is  for  no  other  purpose. 

Senators  will  bear  with  me  while  I  make  a  further  remark.  The  proposition 
is  to  introduce  his  whole  message,  not  simply  what  he  says  for  himself,  not  sim- 
ply the  arguments  that  he  chooses  to  present  in  the  form  of  a  written  declaration, 
in  vindication  of  his  criminal  conduct,  in  violation  of  the  clearest  and  plainest 
provisions  of  law,  and  in  direct  defiance  of  the  action  of  the  Senate  and  of  the 
notice  it  had  served  on  him  on  the  night  of  the  2  Lst  of  February ;  but  the  Sen- 
ate will  bear  with  me  when  I  say,  what  they  do  know,  that  this  message  reports 
the  declarations  of  third  persons,  and  of  course  the  Senate  are  asked  to  accept 
these,  too,  as, evidence  in  the  trial  of  the  accused  at  their  bar. 

He  reports  in  this  message  the  declarations  of  third  persons  whom  he  has 
pleased  to  call  his  "constitutional  advisers."  He  states  their  opinions.  With- 
out giving  their  language  he  gives  the  conclusions,  and  those  conclusions  are  to 
be  drawn  before  the  Senate  as  matter  of  evidence.  I  beg  leave  to  say  here,  in 
the  presence  of  the  Senate,  that  there  is  no  colorable  excuse  for  the  President  or 
for  his  counsel  coming  before  the  Senate  to  say  to  them,  whether  it  be  commu- 
nicated in  his  written  message  or  otherwise,  that  he  has  any  right  to  attempt  to 
shelter  himself  for  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  country  under  the  opinions  of 
any  member  of  his  cabinet.  The  Constitution  never  vested  his  cabinet  counsel- 
ors with  any  such  authority,  as  it  never  vested  the  President  with  authority  to 
suspend  the  laws,  or  to  violate  the  laws,  or  to  disregard  the  laws,  or  to  make  ap- 
pointments iu  direct  contravention  of  the  laws,  and  in  defiance  of  the  final  action 
of  the  Senate  acting  iii  express  obedience  to  the  requirement  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (after  examining  the  message.)  You  are  right.  He 
reports  the  opinion  of  his  cabinet. 

Mr.  Manager  Bimgham.  I  was  aware  that  I  was  right.     There  is  no  colorable 
excuse  for  this  proceeding.     I  say  it  with  all  respect  to  the  learned  counsel,  and 
1  challenge  now  the  production  of  authority  from  any  respectable  court  that  ever 
allowed  any  man,  high  or  low,  official  or  unofficial,  to  introduce  his  own  declar- 
ations, written  or  unwritten,  made  after  the  fact,  in  his   defence.     That  is   the 
point  I  take  here.     1  beg  the  pardon  of  the  Senate  for  having  detained  them  so 
long  in  the  statement  of  a  proposition  so  simple,  and  the  law  of  which  is   so 
clearly  settled,  running  through  centuries.     I  submit  the  question  to  them. 
Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators — 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Do  we  ever  have  the  close  here? 
Mr.  EvARTS.  I  dare  say  you  have  :  but  I  also  have  the  opportimity  to  speak. 
No  question  arises  of  my  irregularity,  I  take  it. 
Mr.  Manager  Blngham.  No,  no. 
31r.  Evarts.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  the  only  apology  that  the 


542  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

learned  manager  has  made  for  the  course  of  his  remarks  is  the  consumption  of 
your  time,  and  yet  he  has  not  hesitated  t  >  say,  and  again  to  repeat,  that  there 
is  not  a  color  of  justification  for  the  attempt  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  defend  himself,  or  for  the  efforts  that  his  counsel  make. 

.Mr.  Manager  Binuham.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  correct  him?  I  do 
not  think  the  gentleman  intends  to  misrepresent  me  here. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  do  not  misrepresent  you. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  I  did  not  say,  then,  if  the  gentleman  pleases,  that 
there  was  no  colorable  excuse  for  the  President  to  attempt  to  defend  himself,  or 
for  his  counsel  to  defend  him.     I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  It  all  comes  to  the  same  thing.  Everything  that  is  attempted 
upon  our  view  or  liue  of  the  subject  in  controversy,  unless  it  conforms  to  the 
preliminary  view  that  the  learned  managers  choose  to  throw  down,  is  regarded 
as  outside  of  the  color  of  law  or  of  right  on  the  part  of  the  President  or  his 
counsel,  and  so  it  is  repeatedly  charged. 

Now,  if  the  crime  was  completed  on  the  2 1st  of  February,  which  is  not  only 
the  whole  basis  of  this  argument  of  the  learned  managers,  but  of  every  other 
argument  upon  the  evidence  that  I  have  had  the  honor  of  hearing  from  them,  I 
should  like  to  know  what  application  or  relevancy  the  resolution  passed  by  the 
Senate  on  the  21st  of  February,  after  the  act  of  the  President  had  lieen  com- 
pleted, and  after  that  act  had  been  communicated  to  the  Senate,  has  on  the  issue 
of  whether  that  act  was  right  or  wrong  ?  And  if  the  f  »ct  that  it  is  an  expression 
of  opinion  relieves  the  testimony  from  the  possibility  of  admission,  what  was 
this  but  an  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  >States  in  the 
form  of  a  resolution  regarding  a  past  act  of  the  President  ?  There  could  be, 
then,  no  single  principle  of  the  law  of  evidence  upon  which  this  fact  put  in  proof 
in  behalf  of  the  managers  could  be  admitted,  except  as  a  communication  from 
this  branch  of  the  government  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  its  opin- 
ion concerning  the  legality  of  his  action  ;  and  in  the  same  line  and  in  immediate 
reply  the  President  communicates  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  openly 
and  in  a  proper  message,  his  opinions  concerning  the  legality  of  the  act.  What 
would  be  thought  of  the  government  that,  in  a  criminal  prosecution,  by  way  of 
inculpating  a  prisoner,  should  give  in  evidence  what  a  magistrate  or  a  sheriff  had 
said  to  him  concerning  the  crime  imputed,  and  then  shut  the  mouth  of  the  pris- 
oner as  to  what  he  had  said  then  and  there  in  reply  1  Why,  the  only  possibility, 
the  only  argument  for  affecting  the  prisoner  with  criminality  for  what  had  been 
said  to  him,  was  that,  unreplied  to,  it  might  be  construed  into  admission  or  sub- 
mission ;  and  to  say  that  the  prisoner,  when  told  "You  stole  that  watch,"  could 
not  give  in  evidence  his  reply,  "  It  was  my  own  watch,  and  I  took  it  because 
it  was  mine,"  is  precisely  the  same  proposition  that  is  being  applied  here  by  the 
learned  managers  to  this  communication  back  and  forth  between  the  Senate  and 
the  President. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  A  single  word,  Mr.  President,  upon  that  proposition. 
I  think  if  any  sheriff  should  say  to  a  thief,  "  Sir,  whose  watch  is  that  i*"  and 
the  thief  could  not  make  a  reply  until  four  days  afterward,  after  he  was  indicted, 
a  written  statement,  then,  as  to  whose  watch  it  was,  and  putting  in  what  his 
neighbor  said  about  it,  would  never  be  received.  I  take  the  illustration  ;  it  is  a 
good  one,  an  excellent  illustration.  A  sheriff  says  to  a  prisoner,  "  Where  did 
you  get  that  watch  V  Four  days  afterward,  after  he  has  been  in  jail,  after  the 
indictment  is  being  found  against  him,  and  while  tiie  court  is  in  session,  he  sends 
an  answer  to  the  sheriff  and  says  that  answer  must  be  given  in  evidence:  and  not 
only  that,  but  he  puts  in  that  answer  what  everybody  else  said,  what  four  or  five 
men  said  to  him,  as  is  the  case  in  this  message,  lie  is  not  content  with  putting 
in  his  own  answer,  but  he  puts  in  the  view  of  the  cabinet.  Now,  we  object. 
If  they  will  fetch  the  cabinet  here  and  let  us  cross-examine  them,  and  find  out 
what  they  meant  when  they  gave  him  any  advice,  and  how  they  came   to  give 


IMPEACHMENT   OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  543 

it  to  him,  and  under  what  circumstances  thej  gave  it  to  hivn,  we  shall  have  a 
different  reply  to  make  to  that.  But  at  present  we  do  not  want  them  to  put  in 
(to  carry  out  the  parallel)  what,  after  he  got  into  jail  and  consulted  with  the 
prisoners  in  the  same  room,  he  says  was  his  answer,  and  what  the  prisoners  who 
Avere  with  him  said  about  it. 

Mr.  EvAHTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  every  case  is  to  be  regarded 
according  to  its  circumstances,  and  yon  will  judge  whether  a  communication  from 
you  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  communicated  to  him  on  the  22d  of 
February 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  21st. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  could  not  say  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Ten  o'clock  at  night  on  the  21st. 

Ml*.  EvARTS.  You  got  at  it  then.     You  did  not  have  it  before. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham    I  read  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Ten  o'clock  at  night  on  the  21st  the  communication  was  sent 
to  him.  The  Senate  was  not  in  session  on  the  22d,  as  I  am  informed,  more 
than  an  hour,  it  being  a  holiday,  and  this  message  sent  in  on  Monday,  Sunday 
intervening,  is  not  an  answer  according  to  the  ordinary  course  of  prompt  and 
candid  treaty  between  the  Senate  and  President  concerning  a  matter  in  differ- 
ence, or  an  answer  to  imputation  communicated  to  him.  As  for  the  simile  of 
the  President  being  in  prison,  we  have  removed  that  by  showing  that  he  was 
not  inifteached  until  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  Monday  the  24th;  and  as 
to  the  simile  that  the  cabinet  were  his  fellow-prisoners  in  the  same  cell,  the 
answer  is  that  they  have  not  been  impeached  at  all.  But  wq  do  not  pursue 
these  trivial  illustrations.  The  matter  is  within  the  intelligence  of  the  court, 
and  must  be  disposed  of  by  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  desire  to  say,  once 
for  all,  to  the  Senate,  that  I  have  said  no  Avord,  and  intend  to  say  no  word, 
during  the  progress  of  this  trial,  that  justifies  the  assertion  of  counsel  for  the 
President  that  I  deny  his  right  to  make  a  defence  either  in  person  or  by  his 
counsel.  What  I  insist  upon  here,  and  ask  the  Senate  to  act  upon,  is  that  he 
shall  make  a  defence  precisely  as  unoificial  citizens  of  the  United  States  make 
defences,  according  to  the  law  of  the  land  and  not  otherwise ;  that  he  shall  not 
after  the  commission  of  crime  manufacture  evidence  in  his  own  behalf,  cither 
oral  or  written,  by  his  own  declaration,  and  incorporate  in  it,  too,  the  declara- 
tions of  third  persons  and  throw  it  upon  the  court  as  testimony.  It  has  never 
been  allowed  in  any  respectable  court  in  this  country  upon  any  occasion. 
When  men  stood  upon  trial  for  their  lives  they  never  were  permitted  after  the 
fact  to  manufacture  testimony  by  their  own  declarations,  either  Avritten  or 
unwritten,  and  on  their  own  motion  inti'oduce  it  in  the  courts  of  justice. 

I  have  another  word  or  two  to  say  in  the  light  of  what  has  dropped  from  the 
lips  of  the  counsel.  He  has  evaded  most  skilfully  the  point  I  took  occasion  to 
make  in  the  hearing  of  the  Senate,  that  here  is  an  attempt  to  introduce  not  only 
the  written  declarations  of  the  accused  in  his  own  behalf  after  the  fact,  but  the 
declarations  of  third  persons,  not  under  oath,  and  their  conclusions  reported  in 
this  message  of  the  24th  of  February,  1868.  I  venture  to  say  that  a  propo- 
sition of  the  extent  of  this  never  was  made  before  in  any  tribunal  of  justice  in 
tlie  United  States  Avhere  any  man  stood  accused  of  crime,  not  simply  to  give 
his  own  declarations,  but  to  report  the  declarations  of  third  persons  in  his  own 
behalf  and  throw  them  before  the  Senate  as  testimony. 

One  other  remark.  The  gentleman  seems  to  think  that  the  President  had  a 
right  to  send  a  message  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  which  should  operate 
as  evidence.  I  concede  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  the  right 
under  the  Constitution  to  communicate  from  time  to  time  to  the  two  houses  of 
Congress  such  matters  as  he  thinks  pertain  to  the  public  interest;  and  if  he 
thinks  that  is  of  the  public  interest  he  may  do  so ;  but  I  deny  that  there  is  any 


544  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

colorable  excuse  (I  repeat  those  words  here)  for  intimating  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  charged  with  the  comraissioa  of  crime  on  the  2l3t  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1S6S,  and  proved  guilty,  I  undertake  to  say,  by  his  written  confession, 
to  the  satisfaction  of  every  intelhgent  and  unprejudiced  mind  in  and  out  of  the 
Senate  in  this  country,  could  proceed  to  manufacture  a  defence  three  days  after 
the  fact  in  the  form  of  a  message.  That  is  the  point  I  innke  on  the  gentleman 
here.  He  says  "  What  importance,  then,  do  you  attach  to  the  action  of  the 
Senate  '!"  We  attach  precisely  this  importance  to  it :  that  the  law  of  the  land 
enjoined  upon  the  President  of  the  United  States  the  duty  to  notify  the  Senate 
of  the  suspension  of  this  officer  and  the  reasons  therefor,  and  tlie  evidence  upon 
which  Ite  made  the  suspension.  The  law  of  the  land  enjoined  upon  the  Senate 
the  duty  to  act  upon  the  report  of  the  President  so  made,  together  with  his 
reasons  and  the  evidence  which  he  adduced,  and  come  to  a  decision.  In  pur- 
suance of  the  requirement  of  the  second  section  of  the  tenure-of-office  act  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  by  an  almost  unanimous  decision,  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  reasons  furnished  by  the  President  and  the  evidence  adduced 
by  him  for  the  suspension  of  the  Secretary  of  War  were  insufficient,  and  in 
accordance  with  that  law  the  Senate  non-concurred  in  the  suspension.  The  law 
expressly  provides  that  if  they  concur  they  shall  notify  the  President.  The 
law,  by  every  intendment,  provides  that  if  they  non-concur  they  shall  notify  the 
Secretaiy  of  War,  that  he  may,  in  obedience  to  the  express  requirement  of 
the  act,  forthwith  resume  the  functions  of  the  office  from  which  he  has  been  sus- 
pended. They  did  give  him  that  notice.  Why  should  they  not  notify  the 
Executive,  that  he  may  know  with  whom  to  communicate,  and  not  be  longer 
communicating  with  the  Secretary  of  War  ad  interitn.  General  Grant,  who  had 
been  appointed,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  act,  Secretary  of  War 
ad  inter un  in  August,  1867  1 

The  gentleman,  I  trust,  is  answered  as  to  the  importance  and  propriety  of 
introducing  this  evidence  ;  but  there  was  further  reason  for  it,  to  leave  the  Presi- 
dent without  excuse  before  the  Senate  and  before  the  people  for  persisting  in 
bis  unlawful  attempt,  in  violation  of  the  law  of  th<'  land,  to  execute  the  dutii-s 
of  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  War  through  another  person  than  Edwin  M. 
Stanton.  It  was  his  business  to  submit  to  the  final  decision  of  that  arbiter  con- 
stituted by  the  tcnure-ofoffice  act  to  decide  the  question  whether  the  suspensioa 
should  become  absolute  or  whether  it  should  be  rejected. 

lint  here  is  a  man  defying  the  action  of  the  Senate,  defying  the  express  letter 
(if  the  law,  that  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  whose  suspension  they  had  refused  to 
concur,  should  forthwith  resume  the  functions  of  that  office,  proceeding  with  his 
conspiracy  with  Thomas  to  remove  him  and  to  confer  the  functions  of  this  office 
xipon  another,  regardless  of  the  action  of  the  Senate,  regardless  of  the  law  regula- 
ing  the  tenure  of  civil  offices,  regardless  of  the  Constitution,  regardless  of  hid 
oath,  regardless  of  the  rights  of  the  American  people  ;  and  he  winds  up  the 
farce  and  the  defiant  guilt  of  which  he  stands  convicted  by  act  before  the  Senate 
with  his  written  declaration,  which  is  of  no  higher  authority  than  his  oral 
declaration,  made  three  days  after  the  fact,  and  asks  the  Senate  to  receive  it  as 
evidence. 

The  Chief  Justus.  There  is,  perhaps,  senators,  no  branch  of  the  law  in 
which  it  is  more  difficult  to  lay  down  precise  rules  than  that  which  relates  tO' 
evidence  of  the  intent  with  which  an  act  is  done.  In  the  present  case  it  a|)pear3 
that  tlie  Senate,  on  the  21st  of  February,  passed  a  resolution,  which  1  will  take 
the  liberty  of  reading  : 

Wlit-rcas  the  Soiiuto  luive  vcccivt'd  mul  cimsidercil  tho  ooniiniuiicution  of  tlio  President 
stating'  tlmt  lie  iias  rciiiovetl  IWwiu  M.  Siuntoii,  Secn-tiuy  of  War,  and  liad  di'signated  the 
Adjutant  (Jeneral  (>f  the  army  to  act  as  St-ni'tary  of  War  ad  iiiteriin  :  Therefore, 

Hcsidvid  hy  the  Sntttr  of  tin:  United  Stuirs,  That  tinder  tlie  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States  the  Prt'sidcnt  has  no  power  to  remove  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  to  designate 
any  other  officer  to  jjertbnii  the  duties  of  the  otiice  ad  interim. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  545 

That  resolution  was  adoptecl  on  the  21st  of  February,  and  was  served,  as  the 
evidence  before  you  shows,  on  the  evening  of  the  same  day.  The  message 
which  is  now  proposed  to  be  introchiced  was  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the  24tli  day 
of  February.  It  does  not  appear  to  the  Oliief  Justice  that  the  resolutiitn  of  the 
Senate  called  for  an  answer,  or  that  there  was  any  call  upon  the  President  to 
answer  from  the  Senate  itself;  and  therefore  he  must  regard  the  message  which 
was  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the  24th  of  February  as  a  vindication  of  the  Presi- 
dent's act  addressed  by  him  to  the  Senate ;  and  it  does  not  appear  to  the  Chief 
Justice  to  come  within  any  of  the  rules  which  have  been  applied  to  the  intro- 
duction of  evidence  upon  this  trial.  He  will,  however,  take  pleasure  in  submit- 
ting the  question  to  the  Senate  if  any  senator  desires  it,  (After  a  pause.)  If 
no  senator  desires  that  the  question  be  submitted  to  the  Senate,  the  Chief 
Justice  rules  the  evidence  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  wish  to  put  in  evidence  a  table  which  has 
been  compiled  in  the  office  of  the  Attorney  General,  which  will  be  found  to  be, 
I  believe,  a  convenience  in  the  progress  of  the  trial  in  the  examination  of  the 
documentary  evidence  which  will  be  pvtt  in.  • 

Ml'.  Drake.  Mr.  President,  we  cannot  hear  the  honoi'able  counsel. 
Mr.  Curtis.  I  will  endeavor  to  make  myself  heard. 

The  Chief  Ju.^tice.  If  senators  will  observe  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  and  the 
gentlemen  who  are  in  the  chamber  and  the  persons  in  the  galleries  will  abstain 
from  conversation,  it  will  be  much  easier  to  hear  the  counsel. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  will  read  the  headings  of  this  table,  so  that  the  nature  of  its 
contents  may  be  perceived.  It  excludes  all  military  and  naval  officers,  all 
judges, of  the  constitutional  judiciary  of  the  United  States,  all  judges  of  the 
Court  of  Claims,  all  officers  Avhose  appointment  is  vested  in  the  President  alone, 
the  heads  of  departments,  or  the  courts  of  law,  and  all  public  ministers,  consuls, 
and  other  agents  of  foreign  intercourse.  They  are  excluded,  and  with  these 
exceptions  "  the  following  is  an  approximate  list  of  all  other  executive  and  ter- 
ritorial offices  of  the  United  States  now  and  heretofore  established  by  statutory 
designation,  with  their  respective  statutory  tenures." 

Then  follows  the  list  of  officers  the  table  contains.  In  the  first  place  the  date 
of  the  act  of  Congress  by  which  the  office  was  created,  the  volume  and  page  of 
the  Statutes  at  Large,  and  next  comes  the  name  or  title  of  the  office.  The 
fourth  column  shows  whether  the  tenure  of  the  office  was  for  a  definite  term. 
Then  there  is  another  column  showing  whether  it  was  for  a  term  definite 
"  unless  sooner  removed,"  the  first  column  being  for  a  definite  term  without  any 
qualification  whatever,  the  second  column  being  for  a  term  definite  unless  sooner 
removed,  the  third  column  for  a  term  indefinite  and  not  expressly  during  pleas- 
ure, and  the  fourth  for  a  term  indefinite,  but  expressly  "during  pleasure." 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Before  you  put  that  in  we  wish  to  object. 
Mr.  Curtis.  One  moment.  The  names  of  the  offices  are  given,  and  then 
there  are  carried  out  in  these  columns  what  tenure  belongs  to  each  of  them.  Of 
course  this  is  not  off'erd'd  as  strictly  evidence,  but  it  has  been  compiled  as  a  table 
which  it  will  be  found  very  convenient  to  refer  to  in  argument,  but  which  it 
Avould  be  necessary  to  consult  and  turn  over  a  great  number  of  statutes  of  the 
United  States  in  order  to  make  use  of  or  arrive  at  these  results.  Here  they  are 
all  brought  tinder  the  eye,  and  we  desire  to  have  the  table  printed  so  that  it 
may  be  used  in  argument  by  counsel  on  all  sides. 

Mr.  ilanager  Butler.  I  observe,  Mr.  President  and  senators,  that  there  is 
one  important  column  missing  in  this  table,  if  it  has  to  have  any  eftect  on  any- 
body's mind,  and  that  is  a  column  showing  whether  the  Senate  was  or  was  not 
in  session  at  the  time  any  one  of  these  officers  was  removed. 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  has  nothing  to  do,  allow  me  to  say,   Mr.   Manager,  with 
removals  at  all.     It  is  the  tenure  of  office  merely.     It  has  no  bearing  on  any 
35  1  P 


546  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

question  of  removal.  It  merely  gives  the  statute  tenures  of  these  different 
offices  ;  and  there  are  no  facts  here  stated ;  everything  is  derived  from  the 
statutes.  All  that  is  in  the  tahle  is  derived  from  the  statutes  of  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  The  difficulty  that  we  find  is  that  this  is  proposed  to 
be  made  a  portion  of  the  evidence.  It  may  be  printed  and  appended  to  the 
argument  of  either  gentleman  or  sent  as  argument  to  the  table  of  any  senator — 
precisely  as  (if  I  may  use  it  as  an  illustration)  I  sent  my  brief — as  an  abstract 
from  the  laws ;  but  to  offer  it  in  evidence  and  to  have  it  printed  except  in  that 
■way  is  what  we  object  to.  The  reason  for  the  objection  must  be  obvious.  Who 
has  any  surety  that  this  is  correct  ?  The  commissions  are  not  kept  by  the  At- 
torney General.     They  are  in  the  Department  of  State. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  This  has  nothing  to  do  with  commissions. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  this  is  a  mere  abstract  of  the  laws  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  what  we  have  stated  exactly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Put  it,  then,  in  your  argument.  Why  should  your 
abstract  of  the  laws  be  put  in  evidence  any  more  than  anybody  else's  ?  The 
difference  is  this  :  if  either  of  ray  friends  on  the  other  side  under  their  hand 
and  upon  their  examination  put  in  their  brief  an  abstract  of  law  I  should  believe 
tliat  the  law  was  exactly  as  it  purports  to  be  abstracted.  But  they  do  not  claim 
that  they  have  examined  this  table — that  this  is  their  work.  It  is  done  in  the 
Attorney  General's  office.  Now,  I  have  not  so  much  confidence  in  everybody 
in  the  Attorney  General's  office  that  I  am  willing  to  take  his  abstract  of  laws 
and  have  it  put  in  these  solemn  proceedings.  If  Mr.  Binckley,  for  instance,  the 
Assistant  Attorney  General,  should  prepare  any  paper  of  this  sort,  I  should 
look  it  over  a  great  while  before  I  should  give  it  great  weight,  and,  I  think,  the 
cpuntry  would  from  their  knowledge.  If  Mr.  Stanbery,  if  either  of  the  learned 
gentlemen  before  me,  will  examine  this  and  say  that  from  their  examination  it 
is  correct,  and  they  make  it  a  part  of  their  argument,  I  am  content;  but  until 
that  is  done  I  object  to  its  going  in  evidence.  Until  that  is  done  I  object,  and, 
as  my  associate  says,  we  shall  object  then.     It  is  not  evidence  in  any  form. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators,  there  is  but  a  word  to  be  said 
on  this  subject.  It  imparts  to  the  case  no  primary  evidence.  It  can  be  veri- 
fied by  oath  as  being  correctly  or  honestly  made  up,  if  that  is  required.  We, 
upon  our  professional  credit,  present  it  as  in  our  belief  a  correct  statement  in  a 
tabular  form  of  the  distribution  of  the  statutory  provisions  concerning  the  tenure 
of  office  that  are  in  force  under  the  government  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Allow  me,  without  interrupting  the  gentleman,  here 
to  ask  whether  he  has  examined  it  so  as  to  know,  of  his  own  knowledge,  that  it 
is  so,  because  that  will  make  a  gi'eat  difference  to  my  mind. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  So  presenting  it,  the  question  is  whether  you  will  receive  it  as 
the  proper  and  necessary  tabular  introduction  to  the  documentary  evidence  con- 
cerning these  different  classes  of  offices  in  respect  to  the  conduct  of  the  govern- 
ment in  filling  or  in  vacating  the  places.  We  did  not  expect  an  objection  to  be 
made,  least  of  all  upon  so  vague  a  notion  as  Mr.  Binckley 's  political  character, 
which  we  are  not  prepared  to  defend,  and  he  is  not  present  to  defend  himself. 
We  submit  it  to  the  Senate.  They  can  treat  it,  if  you  please,  as  a  presentation 
by  us  now  presently  of  the  distribution  of  the  offices  of  the  United  States 
according  to  statute,  in  order  to  introduce  our  practical  and  actual  legal  testi- 
mony aj)propriate  to  each  class.     It  is  submitted  to  the  discretion  of  the  Senate. 

]\h-.  jManager  Boutwkll.  Mr.  President  and  senators,  this  paper,  upon 
examination,  does  not  show  that  any  person  was  ever  appointed  to  office  or  was 
removed  from  office. 

•Mr.  EvARTS.  So  we  have  stated,  over  and  over  again,  that  it  comes  out  of 
the  statutes  bodily. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  547 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Then  I  am  utterly  unable  to  see  how  it  can  be 
regai-ded  as  testimouy  upon  any  issue  that  is  before  this  tribunal. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  the  paper  be  printed  as  a  part  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  all  we  desire. 

The  Ch[ef  Justice,  It  Avill  be  necessarily  printed,  having  been  offered  by 
the  counsel  for  the  President.  The  Chair  will  put  the  question,  however.  You 
who  are  of  opinion  that  the  paper  be  printed  will  say  "  aye ;"  tliose  of  contrary 
opinion  will  say  "  no." 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  table  thus  ordered  to  be  printed  is  as  follows  : 


548 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT 


<i5     ••>    *»     S^ 

^^     r;     i     «^ 


V' 


^C 


s 

c 
S 

« 

ao 

'-<' 

(^ 

o 
V 

-<« 

1^ 

^ 

%> 

1^ 

w^ 

s 

to 

1 

"^ 

V 

=9 

5^ 

;:^ 

<*i 

s 

•-^ 

>v" 

'^ 

f^ 

r^ 

'^ 

^ 

^ 
>» 

■^ 

^ 

^ 

f^ 

^T 

>5 

«c 

Ki 

5^    ^ 


% 


=0 

C 

?■, 

S 

~5J 

«.) 

^s 

<V1 

-« 

-•^ 

->o 

•^ 

a? 

5^ 

f^ 

V- 

S 

=* 

5j 

^ 

t;n 

■ij 

ac 

'^ 

^ 

■i) 

s 

»0 

!5S 

•ki 

5i 

^ 

% 

5^ 

5 

^ 

>^ 

e 

^ 

K 

»0 

o 

;i 

s 

^ 

c- 

^ 

« 

C 

;^ 

o 

•  •^ 

s 

I. 

? 

Co 

^ 

^^ 

•vj 

t: 

.« 

^ 

''e 

^ 

^ 

.^ 

^,^ 

« 

1*i 

^ 

«.. 

i. 

SK 

^ 

SS 

>>» 

V 

s 

to 

c3 

s 

§ 

y 

H 

hq 

•3.inf^B8id 
3nunp  fiissijidj)   }nq 


■ajnsBaid  Stn 
'aijugapai  uuaj  B  joj 


•poAoraaj  jauoos  ssaj 
-nn  ajuigap  nua;  ■e  aoj 


•ajingap  uuaj  e  jo^j 


•aSud 


a  —  —  ''I      ci 

"  Si,      -^ 
■o  3      oa 


Tic 


"C 


c  "2 

O    g  00 


2=    ^ 


•o      -^ 


IS 


o  o  c  o  o  o 

'C  'C  'O  'O  'O  'C 


E-5 


£  t^  ^ 


u  a 


cs  ca£    so 


5«.2-Sccsc2    « 
«j  '^  1  2  ^  5  -i  •'!  '5)  -3 


»  CI  c»  '.o  »  •.o  in  to  a:  in  t 


•8nm[0jV 


-H  —  CO"-l-<rtai<N.-l<NWr-( 


.  00  «3 
•  "  "to      •  --  1-1  -^ 

-    -    .-^  r^    „   .to 

KTI  C'l  (X  X  CI  O  GC 


«_c< 


•  -  S  !:  0..0 


■a  00 
^  _  a  X 


..  r-.  _-, 


COO  00  00000 


El 

s  o 


Pi^ 


is  -  3  =^  "  a 

coT-^jja-r.  ss-ca 
o-s-SCo.HccpS 

o  -a  o  .-  .2  S  o  o  o  o  ^ 


(T.  totcxtccocto-^mciSjo 


<(?)r5«Wr3lf5CO-<)iO>p;(M(N 


T»  t^  1^  (^  t~ 

c(  T  00  X  X)  00  ?£«■:;  *  _ 


e  c) 


3__  .c  ^  j:  J3 


jaCJi  c»j3"— 'js 


^  i;  != 


fc-  b.  >»  t,  >>  t 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


549 


-B  ■=  -a  -c  -a  ■s  -a 


coooocoooooooooo 


o  o  c  o  o  o 

'C  'C  'C  "C  'B  'B 


ce  CO 
a  a 
.2 .5  a  >> 


3  '3  S  S 

O  o  »  -r* 

'-^-^■3  33 

O   o  J^ 


a  3  t-iQ 


O    <D 

a  t> 


i  "o  o   -^  "i^  **-<  ■*? 


o  o  o  a  o 

U3    i,    fc.    B    . 


a-5  a- ! 


a  a  s 


a  .9  1.  "S 


Si; 


a  o 


|-2^^  S  S.-tiOO^.-tJ 


a.gg 


"Sao 
i«  oS  a 


°  5  S  ..  P  ^  „  ,  ^       =„ 


2  =  §  ^  3  2  .-5 
—  v;  -o  o  a  .2  s  o  -2  :- 

C  rt  M  «5  M  f^  ■„  •-    (C  p., 

00000 


q  5^ 


-  =1  _s 


3tB 


=Jo   1.         -    -        „ 


£  c  S.^  i  .a  ?i^ 


;-jqi 


1>.3: 

•a  §■=•; 
3aoh 


>"  »  -  cs  o  •_■  o  0  C  ■^ 

■a  .9  -^  a  c3  ^  a  a 


■  o  o  &  o   ^  ~  ^ 


■"H  'i  '"H  -s  -B  B  e  S  ^  "i^  a  d  ci 

■-  jr  'r-  v  i-  »^  --"C  ■;:  <ii  ^  -:  •; 

s„i,--%.-_ooE-io°*!:oco 
"=  t2  ^  -3  -5  ■-  >>'tr  ^  S'^'t;  'c  >.  i; 


B  a  53 

■a-a-r; 


^25^3 -a-'-     .+^     .^     -^ 

M  2  3  33  a  c-o  >3'o>3'at;ij 
a.a];xc;3j30^i;;-Oi,3— ii^ 


O  t.  o  o  •-.  O  O  u   o 
a  a  ^  a  a  a 


Clr^^-OlOc^c*^^cOLOc:ai•^^or5•^r:coco^:MOOrJ«coalC^ 


SCO^COMCOCO^— '-H        ^OOri^-^-^tO-^-^OCiCii 


(7i!?»c^^:^*t>.oicx>alMOf^^(^^^^OT^^c^c^!r5c^ooa^3lt7i^ooQua)lf^^oooo:^«rt      eoioioo^'^'^-^ajoia^i--^:;^ 


t^  ^V  '-^  ^i  ^  '^  Gi  ^^  r^  >-*  ^^  r-i  t^  L" 


ann  y^      mo      c^ii^t^t^t*- 


i-ir-(rH(HCTO«rHrHiHco-a'omic»  —  «5iominm--ir-nor-ii-ioMM5JiHi-irH(N(rj(rj(ri     ojr-iffi<Noicj(M!Nncowrocor5 


■■^  ^  CO  ! 
—  —  CJ  C)  Jl  ^ 
O  O  "J    j^  "j^  t 

22  3  o  3 ■ 


3  r-  t~  t-  t- 

^  '^  ro  CO  CO 

JCO  Xi  CO 


)  CO  ao  "~ 

-  QD  r-. 


800 


'0-0.=.=  ?=  a 


>^<;SSSSt»a!!»SSS5 


■    ■cJh-'-'^'^gS^cr^ciS    •    '^sSSgg^^S  goo    --l^. 

S-i'gScdQdoooDggAgi'S233S^'-^--g22  2g§-« 

-22- 5'"""'^'^  .  -    "-   .i2'"(-"t-V"-^'b  -  -  --^2Tb 

.     .-,-  =    b"  -b  b  b*^'  '^'  "  to"!-""  .^"^  <-  1.  t;'  ^  "  "  "  f,-"    b  CJ 

>>>-g-a  g  §  §  §  2  g  2  >.  >.  g  >.  >-.i^  5  ^  &  £ -^  §  g  g-g  >.  =  5  a 


>  ci  r- 1~  ei 

.  — .  — .  — 00 

>  00  00  QO  -H 


.-    .      ;3    ;^    O)    cu    iJ    w 

irba-aaaab 


550 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


Saunp  fiisnudza  }nq 


•ajiissajd  3nu 
-tip  djsssjdxj  }on  puB 
'e^iugspai  uim%  «  jo^ 


•paAoras-i  jonoos  ssaj 
■nn  'ajiuijop  ausj  ■«  ao^j 


•djtugop  caj9j  t;  jo^ 


5  .r:  o  S  (i< 

Is  il  I 

'^-■~  a  ?  o 
S-c  X  J:  ® 


t  t  •§> 


ig  I-.    lb-    c 


III 

COS 


1   X 


b^ 


2^  .^^ 

^_  ^  o  c  <» 
o  ^  .-s  r  .sJ 
i^  °  •:  fc  'S 

°  =  f-  H  "^ 


c  o 


-22 

•E'C 


va  H  E-i  '"^.a  q  g 


o  o .«;  g  o  o  .o 

O  t-   a   ^  C   fc.   i 

a  s  •— ,  ^  c  s  .^ 

fc  a;  =*-.  t-  ^  X  '■*-. 


s-  cs  s  ti 
I  ^  ^  -s 


5  fee  C  * 

r^—  Ota 

,  ;i  c;  =  cs  a 


E  -2       a  E  ~ 


o  o  i; 

he  tCS 

OO  p 

CO  S 

^  5  s 

5  1"- 


X  o  I  .=  1  g:'  g'.S, 

■xC    Ji    »'x2l5£ 

r'  c  t-  c  ?^  c  u  c 

;>  <  O  aj  o  <  C  00  o - 


50 


■a3«d 


'oDun[OA. 


W5  ?0  (O  CD  (O        1— t 
lO»OWIOO«         r-(fHt-«rHtr 


CT^h-COOlOCrt 


"i"r-5<'«'T».c)(MC»i;»cc««cT 


nnnnr<     mnu;>no>ooo>o>a>oa>a>mtno>no)a>a>a>a>o>o>3>ooooo 


Si  cj  CI  6<  I 

00  00  00  00  ■ 


»o  to  t*;  10  i-'^  io  tn  in  i.'2 


00  OO  00  CD 


a3!S!2<- f.   .00  oo'^o  oc  (X;  ixj  TOiTO  o  05  a>  01  ct;  cjetj  w    - 


IMPEAC^ME^'T    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


551 


c  a 


o 
■a 

"5 

c 

c 

o  c 

•C'C 

c 

^ 

c 

o  o 

o 

■c 

o  c  c  c  o 
-c  "c  -c -c  -e 

c 
•c 

c 

C 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 
•c 

c 

c 

c 

c 
•c 

o  o 

C 

•c 

o  c 

c 

o  o 

O   0 

•t 

i 

>£ 

•§ 

'.    ',  c 

.      ."C 

c 

;  I  c 

^ 

'•     '"C 

i 

*i 

;  J 

i  c 

> 

c 

'4 

i 
c 

i 
< 

3 
■i- 

c 

c 
c 

< 

"4     ■       • 

.e-b 

c  o 

o  c  ' 

"111 

'  i 

c 

i 

>  * 

>1 

H  j 

^ 

4 

3   2=" 

;> 

5 

I 
b 

i 

'5 
1 

■    .  c 
;;  g  - 

5  c 

1 
c 

D 

2  J 

t 

a 

s: 
c 
t 

o  ^ 

J    > 
^    C 

2l 

1  for  Colorado  Territory 

i  for  Nevada  Territory 

for  Dakota  Territory 

th  Mississippi  territory 

1  for  Montana  Territorv 

-  X  ° 


>■  c  V' 


\-^<-C-Jr.-^<~-f.\ 


'-  \,  >  >  i-  >  >  >    >■    >>>>>?>_>>■ 
r.-7.-7.-7.v.v.-j:^.   v.   v.  ir.  v.  7.  v.  7.  if.  S.  in 


xc^---''?■^;ct~lOc■tlnlr^u^e(c>■^'■^c:0-J<TJOC^'T>c^c:^5--|(^ltctcooc:s;-t•c^lC•nc»c^t^t~■«■t£ooc:— '^■^•-"■nCT^ 
cj  cj «  cj  uj  C(  iTJ  7<  tc  to  a;  -.o  tc  -H  r-i  ^  r^  ci  c»  Oi  o»  CJ  cj  t)  cj  X  X  OD  00  .<j.  m  co  t~  ■<i'  o<  -a-  «5  c)  n  co  c^  tc  ^  ci  c>  co 

COOOOOOOC<eiCJC»CJCTeJff>C»(MC»(riC»C}CJC>CJClC'!C»C!«!^MeCKi-iC«COM'9'«OOSCnOOOOOOIJ;J2J'^J2 


552 


IMPEA.CIIMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


Sni.inp   fqsg3.idx:)  jnq 
'ajiaifopuj  uijs)  B  JO^J 


•3.msBaid  3nu 
-np  Aiss3Mix3  )oa  pae 


ooooooooooo 


"paAoma.i  aanoos  ssaj 
-nn  'ajTugsp  taaaj  b  jo  j 


■3}mijap  luas?  b  jo  j 


■>2  £  5  X '»  5  iS  oj ,:;  a; ;:  X  k; 


=  s  ■ 
iSxi: 


o  ^  1. 

*^  ■"_<-*  2  3 
-  =  =  a  =  =i  =  «.i 


S  i  i   3  'a  ^  S) 

&.&,?- s- a.  ^  < 

O   C   O  O   O  -^    3 
u  i.   t.   •-    I.   g  t- 

5^  5i  =!  5;  i -3  =i 


S  g  s 

o  c  o 


:  c.  a 
>  s  o 

>!»0 


•8uin[0A 


t-<c  •rro'Xi- 


'■c  ti  no  -^ 


i(5CT'»'««CTncT««'vineieiS!0)oo«-^CTiNiNOJ«p5-<r'*>om>ftoj3i«3£j 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 


>0j 


=2^ 


m  o 


<  fo 


o  o  o  o  o  o 


o  o  o  o  o    o 


3iS  "5 
=>« O  S. 


ndcjjJcaacScs 


:  a  a 
;ttO 


„  ~  S  = 
?!  5  *  .   a 
S  I  !^  b-^ 

2  a  2  ■£  £ 


g-at: 

3 ^^  3 


"r  a  t!  •=  '   -  " 
-5  o  a  2  'C  a  -3 

O   O   t^    o 


al  'p  ci 


-S  .•  £  as  £  o 
ca  S  -;  -S  t:  a  .„ 

T!  S  o  a  £*  o  a 


o  ^ 

a  'a  >^S 


ci    C3   03   C3    s    rf 


S  ^-  s  *  ca 


S  o 


3  ~  'o 


o  o  a 


_g  c  o  g 


r^eiis 


o  c  o  c  ;  c 


<D  "  o  =2 


o  "o  ~  ■;<  ii  ^  -^ 

Q  so-3   tJ   O   O  c 

o  g  >,  c  o,  5.-S 

O   X   C'  *t. 


i  .£f  5  e  c  s  °  a 


£;  5  X 


5f  ^  "t;5 
a"o  aT 

o  "ha 
s  -^  o 

wQ3 


■s  a 

0  0X3 


oj  c3  3j    a*   > , 


o  o  's  ;a  —  a 


a-= 


•a  "3  "C  •-  •' 

a  7  a  a  ! 
S  -5  g  a  : 

O    ^-    Oj    O 


■s^  a 


^  (7J  0»  CO  t^  O  •-I         CI  lO  C<  »0         Ci  CD 


:CJO00  1OtO0D  —  ^00  —  C^         C0CCX)O 


<0J'*mg'-i2»iM'-<r-igr^      CJi»HL'5iom>mnmo>(M(jJMcoco-<j<ioo(>!!;Qco-*C'«-*C!COC)c>ojci(T>o 


^  3:     _      ;*^  ^ 


a>  V,  S  CO « 

cc  i  LI  00  '. 

OD  ^  "^  f-H  C 


;cjr-i 


^  s  oo'js  "'■'  ^  cj  jq  '■■'  CO  in  i  CD  a 


a.  03 


■O    fc.      ^      <"->    1-^   QU    "^.C^ 


c;  * 


*  00        :0  'O  'O 


ci  ^-    -»ri  o  iri  lo 


(i*«i!  ss: 


?S2 

,  ...,-^  -t-<o"".cD<"i^;'~l  '"-'^"? 

^  Qo  o  CO  to  to  £2  CO  f-1  '-oJo_.S^  =  ccJ?oSi~oot^.o<2 

-  -  -  ^ -^ -^ -<  >.ao -^_  -2;  "«->>'"  -  >>-' >>2  >,  >,4 
>.>>>>>,>.>>„_    _ 


^  00  GO  00  00  00  00  ' 


■>^s..^«_gr-._._.^ 


654 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PEESIDENT. 


a 

3ni.mp  fijsssudxj  jnn 

•9jnST!9][d  Sni 
-jnp  djsssudxa  jon  pan 
'ejiagapai  nuaj  b  joj 

e 

•c 

0 
t: 

•psAomai  janoos  gss] 
-nn  'ajiugop  ra.iaj  e  jo^ 

C 

•ejingop  cnjg}  b  aoj 

Narao  or  title  of  office. 

o 
a 

u 
O 

o      ^ 

>>    "S 

>    s 

!  1 

1-1 

C-H    > 

o    .ca 

C8  o  S 

III 

E*ga 

o  »■  o 

a 
<^ 

s 

5 

£ 

a; 
tj 

o 

a 
c 

1 

c 
S 

a 

c 
■5 
C 

s 

c 
_o 

"3 

C 

I 
c 

*a 

"i 

i 

'6 

^  to 

•930,1 

CJ     in  o  CO  — 1 

■>»<     O)  T  c3  PI 

— 1  -^««o 

■dcunioA. 

i->     CO  iri  rj  as 

ao 

a 

Ij 

—  53 

» 
0 

t 

3 
< 

<x 

2 
: 

to 

CO 

« ; 

u 

IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  555 

Mr.  CrRTFS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  now  desire  to  put  in  evidence  rather  in  a 
more  formal  manner  than  has  been  done  heretofore,  although  the  substantial 
facts  have  been  brought  before  the  Senate,  we  believe,  by  the  honorable  man- 
agers themselves,  the  proceedings  which  took  place  at  the  time  of  the  removal 
of  Mr.  Pickering  by  Mr.  Adams,  accompanied  by  a  certificate  that  the  letters  to 
and  from  various  persons  between  the  29th  of  June,  1799,  and  the  1st  of  May, 
1S02,  have  been  for  many  years  missing  from  the  files  of  the  Department  of 
State.  The  correspondence  itself,  therefore,  cannot  be  produced  from  the 
originals,  or  from  copies  of  the  originals,  but  no  doubt  they  are  correct,  as  those 
letters  were  read  the  other  day  by  the  honorable  managers  from  a  volume  of 
]\Ir.  Adams's  works.  They  are  the  same  letters.  The  letters  are  not  here; 
they  are  not  in  the  department ;  but  they  are  printed  in  that  volume,  and  were 
read  from  the  volume  the  other  day. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Wait  a  moment.  We  are  not  certain  about  this. 
[After  an  examination  of  the  documents  offered  in  evidence.]  Do  I  understand 
the  counsel  for  the  President  to  say  that  these  papers  show  anything  different 
from  what  was  shown  by  the  managers  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  No  ;  I  stated  that  in  substance  the  matter  was  now  before  the 
Senate,  but  we  wanted  the  formal  documents  to  be  put  in. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  only  difficulty  I  find  is  this,  that  you  do  not  put 
in  all;  you  do  not  put  in  what  was  done  on  the  12th  of  May  as  well  as  the  13th 
of  May,  1800. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  put  in  what  there  is  here. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  Yoii  have  already  put  in  the  other. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  good. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  offer  these  documents  from  the  Department  of  State. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well. 

The  documents  thus  offered  in  evidence  are  as  follows  : 

United  States  of  America,  Department  of  State : 
To  all  to  ichom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting  : 

I  certify  that  the  document  hereunto  annexed  is  a  true  copy,  carefully  examined  and  com- 
pared with  the  original  resolution  of  the  Senate,  dated  13th  May,  18U0,  and  filed  in  this 
department,  confirming  John  Marshall,  of  Virginia,  to  be  Secretary  of  State,  and  Samuel 
Dexter,  of  Massachusetts,  to  be  Secretary  of  the  Department  of  War. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  hare 
hereunto  subscribed  my  name,  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State  to  be  affixed. 
[  L   s  1        ^one  at  the  city  of  Washington  this  5th  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1868,  and  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States  of  America  the  ninety  second. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


United  States  of  America.  In  Senate,  May  13,  1800. 

The  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  of 
the  12th  instant,  and  the  nominations  contained  therein  of  the  Hon.  John  Marshall,  esq., 
ofVirginia,  to  be  Secretary  of  State  in  the  place  of  the  Hon.  Timothy  Pickering,  esq.,  removed; 
the  Hon.  Samuel  Dexter,  esq.,  of  Massachusetts,  to  be  Secretary  of  the  Department  of  War, 
in  the  place  of  the  Hon.  John  Marshall,  nominated  for  promotion  to  the  office  of  State. 

W^  hereupon, 

Resolved,  That  they  do  aflvise  and  consent  to  the  appointments  agreeably  to  the  nomina- 
tions respectively. 

Attest :  SAMUEL  OTIS,  Secretary. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  executive  clerk  of  the  Senate  desires  to  correct  a 
statement  made  in  respect  to  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewing.  Mr.  Clai'ke  will 
make  the  correction. 

D.  W.  C.  Clarke  recalled. 

The  WiTXESS.  I  stated  in  my  examination  that  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewing 
was  brought  to  the  Senate  on  the  22d  of  February.  I  did  so  in  consequence 
of  a  memorandum  which  I  found  at  the  bottom  of  my  sheet.  I  find,  by  investi- 
gation since,  that  I  made  that  memorandum  from  the  fact  that  it  was  brought  to 


556  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  Senate  chamber  on  the  22d  of  February  by  Mr.  Moore,  but  the  Senate  was 
not  in  session,  and  he  returned  with  it  to  the  Executive  Mansion,  He  brought 
it  up  with  one  other  message  and  the  message  of  the  President  in  relation  to  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  on  the  24th,  and  it  was  then  submitted  to  the  Senate. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  I  want  to  see  if  I  con-ectly  understand  you.  I  understand  your  statement 
now  to  be  that  Colonel  Moore  brought  it  and  delivered  it  to  you  on  the  22d,  but 
the  Senate  had  adjourned? 

A.  No,  sir.     He  brought  it  up  on  the  22d  ;  he  did  not  deliver  it  to  me. 

Q.  He  brought  it  ? 

A.  He  brought  it  on  the  22d,  but  the  Senate  was  not  in  session,  and  he  took 
it  back  to  the  Executive  Mansion. 

Q.  And  on  the  24th  he  returned,  and  then  it  was  formally  brought  in  1 

A.  That  is  it. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  How  do  you  know  that  he  brought  it  here  ;  of  your  own  knowledge  ? 
A.  Only  by  the  information  of  Colonel  Moore. 

Q.  Then  all  you  have  been  telling  us  is  what  Colonel  Moore  told  you  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  all  in  regard  to  the  nomination. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well,  sir;  we  do  not  want  any  more  of  Colonel 
Moore's  information  from  yovi. 

Mr.  Curtis,  We  will  call  Colonel  Moore. 

William  G.  Moore  recalled. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q,  (handing  to  the  witness  the  message  nominating  Thomas  Ewing,  sen.,  as 
Secretary  of  War.)  What  is  the  document  you  hold  in  your  hand  1 

A.  The  nomination  to  the  Senate  of  Thomas  Ewing,  sen.,  of  Ohio,  to  be  Sec- 
retary for  the  Department  of  War. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  that  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  On  what  day  1 

A.  On  the  22d  day  of  February,  1868. 

Q.  About  what  hour  in  the  day  ? 

A.  I  tliink  it  was  after  12  o'clock. 

Q.  And  before  what  hour  1 

A.  And  before  one. 

Q.  Between  twelve  and  one  ? 

A.  Between  twelve  and  one, 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

A.  By  the  direction  of  the  President  I  brought  it  to  the  Capitol  to  present  i' 
to  the  Senate. 

Q.  About  what  time  did  you  arrive  here  ? 

A.  I  cannot  state  definitely,  but  I  presume  about  a  quarter  past  one, 

Q.  Was  the  Senate  then  in  ses^<ion,  or  had  it  adjourned? 

A.  It  had,  after  a  very  brief  session,  adjourned. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  document  in  consequence  1 

A.  I  returned  with  it  to  the  Executive  ^Mansion,  after  a  visit  to  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

Q.  Were  you  apprised  before  you  reached  the  Capitol  that  the  Senate  had 
adjourned  ? 

A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  document  subsequently  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  557 

A.  I  returned  with  it  to  tbe  Executive  Mansion,  after  having  visited  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

Q.  Was  anything  more  done  with  the  document  by  you ;  and  if  so,  when, 
and  what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  was  directed  by  the  President  on  Monday,  the  24th  day  of  February, 
1S68,  to  return  and  deliver  it  to  the  Senate. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  in  consequence  1 

A.  I  obeyed  the  order. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Was  that  open  and  as  it  is  now,  or  in  a  sealed  envelope,  when  you  took  it  ? 

A.  In  a  sealed  envelope. 

Q.  Did  you  put  it  in  yourself  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  put  in  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  what  was  in  the  envelope  ? 

A.  It  was,  I  believe,  the  only  message  I  brought  that  day ;  I  gave  it  to  the 
clerk,  who  sealed  it  and  handed  it  to  me. 

Q.  And  then  did  you  unseal  it  again  at  all ;  or  did  you  examine  it  to  see 
what  was  in  it  until  you  left  it  here  on  the  24th  l 

A.  I  did  not,  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Did  you  show  it  to  anybody  here  in  the  House  on  that  day  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  it  was  sealed. 

Q.  Have  you  spoken  this  morning  with  Mr.  Clai-ke  here  upon  this  subject  ? 

A.  He  asked  me  upon  what  date  I  had  delivered  the  message.  I  told  him 
the  24th. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  now  offer  in  evidence,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  a  document  which  I 
desire  to  be  read  by  the  clerk. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Allow  me  to  see  it  before  it  is  read. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Certainly. 

(The  document  was  handed  to  Mr.  Manager  Butler  and  examined  by  him.) 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  no  objection. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secx-etary  will  read  the  document. 

The  Secretaiy  read  as  follows  : 

United  States  of  America,  Department  of  State  : 
To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting  : 

I  certify  that  the  documeut  hereunto  annexed  is  a  trne  copy,  carefully  examined  and  com- 
pared with  the  original  record  of  this  department,  authorizing  ".John  Nelson,  Attorney 
General,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  ad  interim  until  a  successor  to  A.  P. 
[Jpshur  shall  be  appointed,"  and  that  this  appointment  was  made  during  the  sessiou  of  the 
Senate. 

I  further  certify  that  the  confirmation  by  the  Senate  of  John  C.  Calhoun  to  succeed  Mr. 
Nelson  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original  filed  in  this  department. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  have 
hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  the  6th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  18(38,  and  of  the  independence 
of  the  United  States  of  America  the  ninety-second. 

[L.  s.]  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

The  Hon.  John  Nelson,  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  will  discharge  the  duties 
of  Secretary  of  State  ad  interim  until  a  successor  to  the  Hon.  A.  P.  Upshur  shall  be  ap- 
pointed. 

The  Department  of  State  will  be  put  into  mourning  for  the  death  of  the  Hon.  Abel  P. 
Upshur,  late  Secretary  of  State;  and  all  foreign  envoys  and  ministers  of  tVie  United  States, 
and  other  officers  connected  with  the  Department  of  State,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  will 
wear  the  usual  badges  in  token  of  grief  and  respect  for  his  meumry,  during  the  period  of 
thirty  days  from  the  time  of  receiving  this  order. 

JOHN  TYLER. 

February  29,  1844. 


558  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

In  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

March  6,  1844. 
Resolved,  That  the  Senate  advise  and  consent  to  the  appointment  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  of 
South  Carolina,  to  be  Secretary  of  State  in  place  of  Abel  P.  Upshur,  deceased,  agreeably  to 
the  noniinatiou. 

Attest:  ASBURY  DICKINS,  Secretary. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  now  oflfer  in  evidence  another  document  which  I  also  wish  to 
be  read  by  the  Clerk  after  it  has  been  inspected.  (The  document  was  handed 
to  the  Managers.) 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  "We  have  no  objection  to  this. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  document. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

United  States  of  Asierica,  Department  of  State  : 
To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting: 

I  certify  that  the  document  hereunto  annexed  is  a  true  copy,  carefully  examined  and  com- 
pared with  the  original  record  of  this  department,  authorizing  Wintield  Scott  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary of  AVar  ad  interim,  during  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resignation  of  George  W. 
Crawford,  and  that  this  appointment  was  made  during  the  session  of  the  Senate. 

I  further  certify  that  the  contirmation  by  the  Senate  of  Charles  M.  Conrad  as  Secretary  of 
War  to  succeed  General  Scott  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original  tiled  in  this  department. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 
have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State  to  be 
aiSxed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  this  sixth  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1868,  and  of  the  indcpend 
ence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the  ninety-second. 

[L.  s.]  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

I  hereby  appoint  Major  General  Winfield  Scott  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim 
during  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resignation  of  the  Hou.  George  W.  Crawford. 

MILLARD  FILLMORE. 
July  23,  1850. 


[Extract.] 

In  Executive  Session,  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

August  15,  1850. 

Resolved,  That  the  Senate  advise  and  consent  to  the  appointment  of  the  following  named 
persons  agreeable  to  their  nominations  respectively  : 

Charles  M.  Conrad,  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  to  bo  Secretary  of  War. 

Attest:  ASBURY  DICKINS,  Secretary. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  now  offer  in  evidence  three  papers,  all  of  which  relate  to  the 
same  transaction.  I  have  put  them  in  an  envelope,  so  that  they  may  be  kept 
together. 

(The  papers  were  handed  to  the  managers  and  examined  by  them.) 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (selecting  one  of  the  papers.)  We  object  to  this 
memorandum.  We  do  not  object  to  the  other  papers.  The  memorandum  of 
Mr.  Browning  is  not  better  than  anybody  else's  memorandum. 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  merely  .states  a  fact  which  appears  by  a  comparison  of  the 
date  of  the  commission  with  the  date  of  the  ad  interim  appointment.  It  is 
immaterial. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Very  good.     We  have  no  objection  to  the  other  papers. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Tlie  Secretary  will  read  the  documents. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  offer  those  whicli  are  not  objected  to. 

The  Secretary  read  the  documents,  as  follows : 

Department  of  the  Interior, 

Washington,  D.  C,  April  7,  18G8. 
I,  O.  H.  Browning,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  annexed  paper  is 
a  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  dei)artniont. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the 
department  to  be  affixed  the  day  and  year  above  written. 

[L.S.]  O.  H.  BROWNING, 

Secretary  of  the  Interior. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  559 

ExECCTTivE  Mansion, 

Washirii'ton,  January  10,  1861. 
I  hereby  appoint  Moses  Kelly  to  be  actinj^  Secretary  of  the  lutorior  until  other  arrange- 
ments can  be  made  in  the  premises. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  ^lay  I  ask  the  counsel  if  they  have  any  record  there 
of  what  became  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  at  the  time  this  acting  appoint- 
ment was  made ;  whether  he  had  resigned  or  run  away,  or  what  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  am  not  informed.  I  cannot  speak  either  from  the  record  or 
from  recollection.     There  was  a  commission  sent  up  which  has  not  yet  been  read. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

United  States  of  America,  Department  of  State  : 
To  all  to  lohom  these  ■presents  shall  come,  greeting : 

I  certify  that  the  document  hereunto  annexed  is  a  true  copy,  carefully  examined  and  com- 
pared with  the  original  record  in  this  department. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  have 
hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State  to  be  afHxed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  6th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1868,  and  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States  of  America  the  ninety-second. 

[L.  s.]  WILLIAM  H.  SEWAED. 


Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America : 
To  all  who  shall  see  these  presents,  greeting : 

Know  ye,  that  reposmg  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  patriotism,  integrity,  and  abili- 
ties of  Caleb  B.  Smith,  of  Indiana,  I  have  nominated,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  con 
sent  of  the  Senate  do  appoint  him  to  be  Secretary  of  the  luterior  of  the  United  States,  and  do 
authorize  and  empower  him  to  execute  and  fulfil  the  duties  of  that  office  according  to  law, 
and  to  have  and  to  hold  tlie  said  ofiice  with  all  the  powers,  privileges,  and  emoluments  there- 
unto of  right  appertaining  unto  him,  the  said  Caleb  B.  Smith,  during  the  pleasure  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  for  the  time  being. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  caused  these  letters  to  be  made  patent  and  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  the  .5th  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1861,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the  eighty-fifih. 

[L.  s.]  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

By  the  President : 

William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  now  oflfer  in  evidence  a  document  which  relates  to  the  removal 
from  office  of  the  collector  and  appraiser  of  merchandise  at  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia, and  also  a  copy  of  the  commissions  issued  to  their  successors. 

(The  documents  were  handed  to  the  managers  and  examined  by  them ) 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Our  objection  to  this,  Mr.  President,  is  that  this  is 
not  an  act  of  any  President  or  any  person  having  authority  to  discharge  officers. 
What  is  offered  is  a  letter  of  one  McClintock  Young,  acting  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  directed  to  the  appraiser  in  Philadelphia,  in  which  he  recites  a  fact. 
That  is  what  is  offered  in  evidence — the  act  of  McClintock  Young,  acting  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury — which  he  writes  to  the  collector  of  customs  at  Phila- 
delphia, asking  him  to  hand  a  letter  to  Richard  Coe,  esq.,  saying  that  he  is 
directed  to  say  that  he  does  not  want  his  services  any  longer.  1  do  not  see  how 
it  bears  on  this  issue.  The  fact  that  somebody  was  commissioned  we  do  not 
object  to;  but  we  do  object  to  this  letter  of  Acting  Assistant  Secretary  McClin- 
tock Young. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Do  you  want  evidence  of  the  fact  that  he  was  acting  Secretary? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  I  have  that  fact  among  these  commissions  of 
my  own. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  documents  are  certified  regularly  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  as  coming  from  the  records  of  that  department.  The  documents 
themselves  consist  of  two  letters  signed  by  McClintock  Young,  who  it  is  admitted 


560  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

was  the  acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  the  time  when  he  signed  these  let- 
ters. We  offt3r  them  in  evidence  to  show  acts  of  removal  of  these  treasury 
officers,  the  appraiser  and  the  collector  in  Philadelphia,  by  the  act  of  McClin- 
tock  Young,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  says  that  he  proceeds  "  by 
the  direction  of  the  President." 

Mr.  Maiviiger  BuTLEii.  The  difficulty  we  find  is  not  removed.  It  is  an  attempt 
by  McCliiitock  Young,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  remove  an  officer  by 
reciting  that  he  is  directed  by  the  President  so  to  do.  If  this  is  evidence,  we 
have  to  go  on  and  try  the  question  of  the  right  of  McClintock  Young  to  do  this 
act,  to  see  whether  an  appraiser  is  one  of  the  "  inferior  officers"  that  a  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  may  remove,  or  the  President  may  remove  without  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate ;  we  have  to  go  into  a  new  series  of  investigations. 
It  is  not  an  act  of  the  President ;  it  is  not  an  act  of  the  head  of  a  department ; 
and  it  is  remarkable  as  the  only  case  that  can  be  found  of  the  kind  so  far  as  we 
know  ;  and  if  it  was  evidence  at  all,  it  would  rather  prove  the  rule  by  being 
the  exception. 

^Ir.  Curtis.  I  understand  it  to  be  admitted  that  McClintock  Young  was  the 
Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  his  appointment. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  take  this  act  of  his,  therefore,  as  if  it  had  been  done  by  a 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Curtis.  He  says  that  he  proceeds  by  the  order  of  the  President,  and  I 
take  it  to  be  well  settled  judicially  and  practically  that  wherever  the  head  of  a 
department  says  he  acts  by  the  order  of  the  President  he  is  presumed  to  tell 
the  truth,  and  it  requires  no  evidence  to  show  that  he  acts  by  the  order  of  the 
President.  No  such  evidence  is  ever  preserved,  no  record  is  ever  made  of  the 
direction  which  the  President  gives  to  one  of  the  heads  of  departments,  as  I 
understand,  to  proceed  in  a  transaction  of  this  kind.  But  when  a  head  of  a 
department  says  "  by  order  of  the  President  I  say  so  and  so  "  all  courts  and 
a]l  bodies  presume  that  he  tells  the  truth. 

'  The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  this  evidence  is  admissi- 
ble. The  act  of  a  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  the  act  of  the  President  unless 
the  contrary  be  shown.  He  will  put  the  question  to  the  Senate,  however,  if 
any  senator  desires  it.  [After  a  pause.]  The  evidence  is  admitted.  Do  you 
desire  to  have  it  read  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  If  you  please,  your  honor. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

United  Statks  of  America, 
TREA.SUKV  Dki'art.mkn T,  April  7,  1868. 

Pursuant  to  tlio  act  of  Congress  of  tlie  22d  of  Februsiry,  1841,).  I  hereby  certify  that  the 
annexed  arc  true  and  correct  copies  from  tlie  records  of  this  department  of  tlie  commissions 
issued  to  Riciiard  Coe  and  Charles  Francis  Breuil,  as  appraisers  of  merchandise  for  the  port 
of  Philadel|)liia,  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

In  witness  wliereof  I  have  in  reunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Treasury 
Department  to  be  atttxed  on  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[L.  s.]  H.  M(^CULLOCH, 

Sccretury  of  the  Trtasury. 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  is  only  necessary  to  give  the  dates  of  those  commissions;  you 
need  not  read  them  at  large. 

The  Secretary.  The  commission  of  Richard  Coe  is  dated  the  25th  day  of 
June,  1841 ;  the  commission  of  Charles  Francis  Breuil  is  dated  the  30th  day  of 
August,  J  842. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Now  read  the  letters. 


IMPEACHMENT    OP    THE    PRESIDENT.  561 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

TuRASiTRY  Dei'aktiwknt,  Au(;ust  17,  1842. 
Sir  :  I  am  directed  by  thu  President  to  inform  you  tliat  your  services  as  appraiser  of  mer- 
chandise for  the  port  of  Philadelphia  are  no  longer  required. 
I  am  very  respectfully,  &c., 

McCLINTOCK  YOUNG, 
Actinff  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
KiCHAKi)  CoE,   Appraiser  of  Merchandise,  Philadelphia. 

Treasury  Department,  August  17,  184'2. 
Sir:  I  have  to  request  that  you   will  deliver  the  enclosed  letter  to  Richard  Coe,  Esq., 
appraiser  at  Philadelphia. 
I  am,  &c., 

McCLINTOCK  YOUNG, 
Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Collector  of  the  Customs,  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  now  offer  in  evidence  documents  from  the  Navy  Department. 

(The  documents  were  handed  to  the  managers  for  examination.) 

Mr.  Stewart,  (at  2  o'chick  and  15  minutes,  p.  m.)  1  move  that  the  Senate 
take  a  recess  for  15  minutes. 

Mr.  SuMNKR.  I  move  an  amendment  to  that,  that  business  be  resumed  forth- 
with after  the  expiration  of  15  minutes. 

The  Ohiek  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice,  before  putting  the  question  on  that 
amendment,  begs  to  remind  senators  how  extremely  difficult  it  is  to  resume  the 
business  of  the  Senate  unless  the  senators  are  present.  '  The  Chief  Justice  will 
put  the  question  on  the  amendment. 

The  amendment  was  rejected. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  now  is  on  the  motion  of  the  senator  from 
Nevada. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chief  Justice  resumed  the  chair  at  the  expiration  of  15  minutes,  but 
there  not  being  many  senators  present  business  was  not  resumed  till  two  o'clock 
and  45  minutes  p.  m.,  when  the  Chief  Justice  said  : 

Senators  will  please  give  their  attention.  Counsel  for  the  President  will 
proceed  with  the  defence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  At  the  adjournment  I  was  about  objecting  to  the  papers 
offered  from  the  Navy  Department.  The  ground  of  my  objection  is  this  :  the 
certificate  appended  does  not  certify  them  to  be  copies  of  recorks  from  the  Navy 
Department,  but  simply  certifies  "  that  the  annexed  is  a  true  statement  from  the 
records  of  this  department,"  signed  by  "  Edgar  T.  Welles,  chief  clerk,"  and 
then  there  is  an  attestation  that  he  is  chief  clerk.  Then  the  heading  of  the 
paper  is  "memoranda,"  so  that  the  paper  is  not  an  official  copy  of  the  record 
but  is  a  statement  made  up  by  the  chief  clerk  of  the  Navy'  Department  of  cer- 
tain matters  which  he  has  cither  been  asked  or  volunteered  to  do ;  and  the  diffi- 
culty about  it  is  that  it  is  informal,,  and  they  leave  out  here  many  of  the  things 
which  are  necessary  to  ascertain  what  bearing  this  has  on  the  case.  For  instance, 
Thomas  Eastin,  navy  agent  at  Pensacola,  it  is  stated,  was,  on  the  19th  of 
December,  IS  10,  dismissed  by  direction  of  the  President  for  failing  to  render  his 
accounts,  and  Purser  So-and-so,  was  ordered  to  take  his  place.  It  does  not  appear 
what  then  was  done,  whether  the  Senate  was  in  session,  and  whether  the  Presi- 
dent sent  at  the  same  moinent  an  appointment  to  the  Senate.  All  that  a])pears 
is  that  on  the  29th  of  April,  1841,  the  President  appointed  Jackson  Morton  navy 
agent  at  Pensacola.  He  might  have  sent  in  Jackson  Morton's  name  at  the  very 
moment  that  he  dismissed  this  man.      No/i  constat ;  it  does  not  appear  at  all. 

I  only  put  this  as  an  illustration.     These  are  not  copies  of  records,  but  they  are 
certified  to  be  a  statement  madt;  up  from  the  lecords  by  somebody  not  un  ler  oath, 
and  who  has  no  right  to  make  statements,  and  they  are  wholly  illusory.     Occasion- 
ally there  are  memoranda  in  pencil  upon  these  papers  made  by  other  persona. 
36  I  P 


562  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  can  apply  India-rubber  there,  and  that  would  remove  that 
objection. 

Ml-.  Manager  Butlkr.  Yes,  sir.  The  difficulty  is  not  so  much  what  is  stated 
here  as  what  is  left  out.  Everything  is  left  out  that  is  of  value  to  the  understanding 
of  this  case.  Here  are  memoranda  ujade  up  from  tlu^  records,  that  A  B  was 
removed,  but  the  circumstances  under  which  he  was  removed,  who  was  nomi- 
nated in  his  place,  and  when  that  person  was  nominated,  do  not  appear.  It  only 
appears  that  somebody  was  appointed  at  Pensacola. 

Mr.  JoH.\so.\.  Are  the  dales  given,  Mr.  Manager? 

Mr.  Manager  BirrLER.  The  dates  are  given  in  this  way :  it  is  stated  that  on 
the  19th  of  December,  1840,  a  person  is  removed,  and  then  on  the  5th  of  Jan- 
uary oue  Johnston  was  informed  that  he  had  been  iippoiuted.  He  must  have 
been  nominated  and  gone  through  the  Senate  and  been  confirmed  in  the  mean 
time.  Non  constat  but  that  he  was  nominated  at  t'lis  very  moment ;  and  if  he 
was  nominated  at  the  very  moment  the  other  man  was  removed,  the  value  of  it 
is  gone  as  a  precedent.  Then  Johnston  was  lost  on  the  voyage,  and  on  the 
29th  of  April,  1S41,  another  man  was  appointed  ;  but  the  whole  value,  I  say, 
is  gone  because  they  have  not  given  us  the  record  ;  they  have  only  given  us 
memoranda,  and  it  is  so  stated,  "memoranda  of  records."  Who  has  any  com- 
mission to  make  memoranda  from  the  records  for  evidence  before  the  Senate  ? 
And  then  in  the  certificate  the  word  "  copies"  is  stricken  out,  and  the  words  are 
written  in  :  "A  true  statement  of  the  records" — a  statement  such  as  Mr.  Edgar 
T.  Welles  chooses  to  make,  or  such  as  anybody  else  chooses  to  make.  I  never 
heard  before  that  anybody  had  a  right  -  to  come  and  certify  memoranda  of 
records,  and  put  it  in  as  evidence.     That  is  one  paper. 

Then  the  next  paper,  although  it  purports  to  contain  true  copies  of  records 
from  the  office,  consists  of  nothing  but  letters  about  the  appointment  and 
removal  of  officers,  navy  agents  again ;  but  being  so  removed  and  appointed, 
only  a  portion  of  the  correspondence  is  given  us.  When  the  nominations  were 
sent  in  is  not  given  us.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  my  friends  on  the  other  side 
chose  to  leave  anything  out;  but  whoever  prepared  this  for  them  has  chosen  to 
leave  out  the  material  facts,  whether  the  Senate  was  in  session,  or  whether  other 
names  were  sent  in.  Now,  the  question  is  if  you  are  going  to  take  excerpts 
from  the  records. 

I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  still  fnrther  to  the  fact  that  all  the 
officers  who  are  covered  by  these  papers  they  have  offered  are  appointed  under 
the  act  of  May  15,  1820,  for  four  years.     That  act  provided  that : 

All  district  attorneys,  collectors  of  the  customs,  naval  officers,  and  surveyors  of  the  cus- 
toms, navy  aji^onts,  receivers  of  j)ublic  iiioneys  for  lands,  registers  of  the  laud  offices,  pay- 
masters in  tilt'  army,  tlie  ajjotliecary  general,  tlie  assistant  a])0tliecaries  general,  and  the  com- 
missary general  of  jiurcliases,  to  be  appointed  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  shall  be 
appointed  for  the  term  of  four  years,  but  shall  bo  removable  from  office  at  pleasure. 

So  that  their  very  tenure  of  office  settles  it  that  they  are  removable  "  at  pleas- 
ure," so  enacted  by  the  law  which  crer.tcs  them;  and  now  tiie  gentlemen  are 
going  to  show  that  under  that,  in  some  particular  instances,  officers  were  removed 
at  pleasure,  but  not  to  show  how  they  were  removed,  the  manner  of  their  removal, 
and  then  to  attempt  to  show  that  by  memoranda  made  by  Edgar  T.  Welles,  cer- 
tified by  Gideon  Wt-lles  to  be  chief  clerk.     Is  that  evidence? 

Mr.  Cl'RTls.  I  understand  the  substance  of  the  objections  made  to  these  doc- 
uments to  be  two.  The  first  is  that  these  are  only  memoranda  from  the  records 
and  not  copies,  not  full  and  formal  copies  from  the  records.  It  is  said  that  it  is 
not  j)roper  to  adduce  in  evidence  such  slatemcnts  of  the  results  shown  by  the 
records  ;  that  instead  of  giving  a  table  containing  the  name  of  the  othcer,  the 
office  which  he  held,  the  day  when  removed,  and  the  person  by  whose  order  he 
was  removed  there  should  be  an  ext(;nded  copy  of  the  entire  act  and  all  the 
papers  relating  to  it.     Well,  in  the  first  place,  i  wish  the  Senate  to  call  to  mind 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  563 

that  tlie  only  document  of  this  chavacter  relating  to  removals  from  office  which 
has  been  put  in  by  the  honorable  managers  is  a  document  from  the  Department 
of  State,  which  contains  exactly  this  memorandum  of  facts  : 

Sc/ifflule  B.  List  of  appointmonts  of  heads  of  departments  made  by  the  President  at  any 
time  during  the  ses&iou  of  the  Senate: 

Timoiliy  Pickeriug,  Postmaster  General,  June  1,  1794. 

SamuefL.  Southard,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  January  2G,  1H29. 

And  go  on.    That  is,  it  is  a  list  extracted  out  of  the  records  in  the  Department 
of  the  Secretary  of  State  containing  the  names  of  the  officers,  the  offices   they 
held,  the  date  when  they  were  removed,  and  the  authority  by  which  they  were 
removed. 
*    Mr.  JoHNSO.N.  How  is  it  certified  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  is  simply  certified  by  the  Secretary  of  State  himself. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlpk.  In  what  language  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  This  is  a  copy  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  I  am  not  prepared 
to  say  how  it  is  certified  ;  hut  it  is  in  evidence  and  can  be  seen.  I  think,  it  will 
be  found  to  be  simply  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  saying  that  there 
were  found  on  the  records  of  his  department  these  facts,  not  any  formal  certifi- 
cate of  extracts  from  the  records.  If,  however,  the  Senate  should  think  that  it 
is  absolutely  necessary,  or,  under  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  proper  to 
require  these  certified  copies  of  the  entire  acts,  instead  of  taking  the  names, 
dates,  and  other  particulars  from  the  records  in  the  form  which  we  have  thought 
most  convenient,  and  which  certainly  takes  up  less  time  and  space  than  the 
other  would,  we  must  apply  for  and  obtain  tliem.  If  there  is  a  technical  diffi- 
culty of  that  sort  it  is  one  which  we  must  remove 

Mr.  Johnson.  Will  the  counsel  state  what  the  act  of  Congress  is  which  makes 
these  certificates  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  There  are  several  acts  of  Congress  ;  but  in  regard  to  the  Navy 
Department,  if  I  recollect  aright,  it  is  in  effect  that  copies  of  the  records  and 
extracts  from  the  records  may  be  certified.     I  think  that  is  the  law. 

The  substantial  objection  which  the  learned  manager  undertook  to  state  was 
that  this  paper  which  we  now  offin-  would  be  illusory,  and  the  reason  is,  because, 
although  it  shows  the  name  of  the  officer,  the  office  he  held,  the  fact  of  his 
removal,  and  the  date  of  the  removal,  it  does  not  show  whether  the  Senate  was 
then  in  session,  and  it  does  not  show  what  the  President  did  in  connection  with 
or  in  consequence  of  that  removal  in  the  form  of  a  nomination  to  the  Senate. 
How  can  the  records  of  tbe  Department  of  the  Xavy  show  those  facts  ?  They 
appear  here  on  your  records,  and  we  propose,  when  we  have  closed  the  offer  of 
this  species  of  proof,  to  ask  the  Senate  to  dnx'ct  its  projier  officer  to  make  a  cer- 
tificate from  its  records  of  the  beginning  and  end  of  each  session  of  the  Senate 
from  the  origin  of  the  government  down  to  the  present  time.  That  is  what  we 
shall  call  for  at  the  proper  time,  and  that  will  supply  that  part  of  the  difficulty 
which  the  gentleman  suggests.  The  other  part  of  the  difficulty  which  he  sug- 
gests is,  that  it  does  not  appear  that  the  President  did  not  fill  up  these  removals 
by  immediate  nominations  when  they  were  made  during  the  session  of  the  Sen- 
ate. It  does  not  appear  either  way.  If  he  desires  to  argue  that  the  President 
did  fill  them  up  by  immediate  nominations,  he  will  find  the  nominations  and  put 
them  in  undoubtedly.  The  records  of  the  Navy  Department,  from  which  this 
statement  comes,  can  furnish  no  information  on  that  subject,  and  therefore  it  is 
not  defective  in  that  particular. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlf.R.  The  counsel  for  the  President,  I  think,  judge  well, 
that  when  they  can  find  that  we  have  taken  any  particular  course  that  must  be 
the  right  course  and  the  one  they  ought  to  follow.  We  certainly  accept  that  as 
being  the  very  best  exposition  of  the  law  so  far  as  we  are  concerned.  But  the 
difficulty  is  this  :  We  offer  testimony  sometimes  that  is  not  objected  to  ;  and  I 
asked  my  learned  friends,  I  think,  in  the  case  referred  to,  whether  they  objected 
to  that  evidence,  and  they  made  no  objection,     If  they  had,  I  might  have  beea 


564  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

more  formal  ;  but  that  doci*  not  meet  the  diflicully  quite.  The;  difficulty  I  find 
ia  that'tlu^y  go  to  the  v:roiig  sources  of  evidence.  Evidence  of  the  removal  and 
appointment  of  officers  and  the  affixing  of  the  seal  to  commissions  is  to  \ni  sought  . 
for  only  in  the  State  Department.  No  officer  who  is  reraoVed  or  appointed  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  who  holds  his  commission  under 
that  tenure,  can  be  appointed  or  can  be  removed  wiihout  all  the  circumstances 
appearing  in  the  State  Department ;  and  there  is  the  place  they  should  go  for 
this  evidence.  If  they  would  go  to  the  State  'Department  they  would  get  it 
all;  they  would  find  out  when  he  was  appointed,  when  he  was  removed,  when 
his  successor  was  appointed,  when  he  was  nominated,  and  everything  precisely 
as  they  have  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Pickering. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Does  the  honorable  manager  understand  that  under  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  all  these  officers  must  be  commissioned  by  the  Secretary  of 
State,  and  that  the  facts  appear  in  his  department,  including  the  officers  under 
the  Interior,  the  Treasury,  the  War,  and  the  Navy  Departments  'I 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  With  the  single  exception  of  the  Treasury,  I  do. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  so  understand  it,  and  it  will  so  appear.  I  think. 
But  at  any  rate  when  the  gentleman  takes  these  commissions  he  will  find  that 
the  commissions  all  emajiate  with  the  seal  of  the  United  States  and  the  signa- 
ture of  the  Secretary  of  ^tn\e  upon  them.  The  testimony  that  he  otfers  is  not 
the  commissions  of  these  officers  ;  and  to  show  that  that  is  the  fact  I  only  appeal 
to  his  own  papers  here.  Instead  of  sending  us  the  commissions  of  these  officers, 
what  is  the  evidence  of  the  appointment  1 

Navy  Depart.ment,  March  24,  1838. 

Sir  :  The  President  of  tlie  Uiiifetl  Sttites,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Sen- 
ate, havinn-  appointed  von  navy  agent  lor  four  years   from  tlie  22(1  of  March,  1838,  I  have 
the  pleasure  to  enclose  herewith  your  commission,  dated  the  24tli  of  March,  J838. 
I  am,  respectfully,  yours, 

M.  DICKERSON. 
Leonaro  JaUVIS,  Esq.,  Nary  Agent,  Boston. 

The  evidence  that  they  give  us  of  the  appointment  is  a  leiter  of  the  Secretary, 
reciting  the  fact  of  the  commission.  If  they  had  gone  to  the  State  Department 
they  would  have  found  the  recoixl  of  the  conmiission.  AVhy  I  complain  of  it, 
and  that  is  all  the  reason  1  complain  of  it,  is  that  again  it  is  illusory,  li'  it  was 
a  mere  matter  of  form  I  would  not  care  about  it.  If  my  friend  will  tell  me  that 
they  will  put  in  the  exact  dates  when  these  parties  were  nominated  I  shall  have 
no  objection  ;  but  they  place  either  upon  the  l^enate  or  upon  me  the  burden  of 
going  to  the  records  and  looking  up  these  dates  and  looking  up  the  evidence  to 
control  their  evidence.  That  is  to  say,  the  Senate  allow  them  to  put  in  memo- 
randa of  j)art  of  a  transaction,  and  put  upon  the  managers  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives the  burden  of  going  and  looking  up  the  rest  of  it.  I  say  it  is  not 
right  to  do  so  ;  that  where  they  put  in  the  transaction  they  ought  to  put  in  the 
whole  record  of  the  transaction,  and  then  we  can  all  see  exactly  what  the  trans- 
action was. 

Mr.  President,  T  have  so  much  respect  for  my  learned  friends  that  whenever  they 
state  a  matter  of  law  as  they  stated  it  to  the  learned  senator  from  Maryland, 
that  extracts  from  rc^cords  might  be  certified,  I  am  ahuost  afraid  to  object;  but 
I  beg  leave  to  read  from  Brightly's  Digrr^t  the  seventeenth  section  on  })age  2G7, 
although  it  is  a  very  bad  practice  to  read  from  digests  : 

All  books,  papers,  documents,  and  records  in  the  War,  Navy,  Treasury,  and  IV-it  Oflice 
Departments,  and  the  Attorney  fleneral's  oflice,  may  be  copied  and  certitied  under  seal  in 
the  same  manner  as  those  in  the  8tate  Department  may  now  by  law  be,  and  with  the  same 
forcA^  and  ettect,  and  the  said  Attorney  General  shall  cause  a  seal  to  be  made  and  provided  for 
his  office,  with  such  device  as  the  I'resident  of  the  United  States  shall  approve. 

Mr.  J()iL\so.\.  What  is  the  date  of  that  act  ? 

]\Ir.  oVIanager  Butler.  1'hat  act  is  dated  February  22,  1849. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Thank  you,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  565 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  And  that  act  refers  to  the  act  of  September  15,  1789, 
which  provides  : 

That  all  copies  of  records  aud  papers  in  the  office  of  the  Department  of  State,  authenti- 
cated under  the  seal  of  the  said  Department,  shall  be  evidence  equally  as  the  original  record 
or  paper. 

I  have  not  seen  any  statute  Avhich  gives  any  riglit  to  certify  extracts  of 
records.  If  these  were  extracts  of  entire  records  they  would  do  ;  but  these 
are  memoranda ;  that  is,  the  gloss,  the  interpretation,  the  collation,  the  dlegesis 
of  the  clerk  of  that  department  of  the  records.  ^ 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Cliief  Justice  will  submit  the  (j^uestiou  to  the 
Senate. 

The  Chief  Justice  put  the  question,  and  declared  that  the  noes  appeared  to 
have  it. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays.  I  think  proof  of  this  kind 
ought  not  to  be  kept  out  on  a  technical  ground. 

iMr.  Hendricks.  I  wish  to  inquire  whether  the  objection  on  the  part  of  the 
managers  requires  that  the  entire  documents  relating  to  the  subject  in  the  depart- 
ments shall  be  produced  ;  whether  the  objection  goes  upon  that  proposition  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  requires  that  a  question  asked  by  a  senator 
shall  be  reduced  to  writing. 

Mr.  Hexdricks.  The  question  I  asked  was  for  information  of  the  managers 
themselves,  whether  the  objection  goes  upon  the  ground  that  the  documents  are 
not  certified  in  full  ? 

The  Chief  Justice,  If  there  be  no  objection,  the  senator  from  Indiana  can 
put  his  question.     Otherwise,  the  rule  requires  that  it  shall  be  in  writing. 

Mr.  MauaL:;er  Butler.  I  did  not  understand  the  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Indiana  will  repeat  his  (juestion. 

Mr.  Hendricks.  Tlie  question  which  I  wished  answered  by  the  managers 
was  whether  it  be  required,  in  the  progress  of  this  trial,  that  the  records  shall 
be  given  in  full  so  far  as  they  relate  to  any  particular  question  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  what  we  desire,  or,  otherwise,  it  sets'  us  to 
looking  up  the  same  record. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  I  wish  to  put  a  question  to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent, 
which  I  am  reducing  to  writing,  and  will  have  prepared  in  a  single  moment. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  their  proposition  to 
writing. 

Mr.  COiNKLiNG.  I  beg  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  to  answer  the  question 
which  I  send  to  the  Chair. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  New  York. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Do  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  rely  upon  any  statute  other  than  that  referred  to  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  am  not  aware  that  there  is  any  other  statute  bearing  on  it. 
By  extracts  from  the  records — of  course  I  do  not  mean  that  any  officer  was 
authorized  to  state  what  he  believed  the  substance  of  a  record  to  be — I  meant 
that  he  might  exti'act  out  of  the  record  a  particular  document. 

Mr.  Conk  ling.   Provided  it  was  a  copy  so  ftir  as  it  went. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Provided  it  was  a  copy  so  far  as  it  went.  In  that  same  connec- 
tion, perhaps  I  ought  to  state,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators,  that  we  do  not 
offer  th(^se  documents  as  copies  of  the  records  relating  to  the  cases  which  are 
named  in  the  documents  themselves.  They  are  documents,  as  I  stated  at  the 
beginning,  of  a  similar  character  to  that  which  tlie  managers  put  in,  containing 
the  substance  of  each  case,  the  name,'  the  date,  the  office,  the  fjxct  of  removal. 
It  is  true  as  the  honorable  manager  has  said,  that  when  he  offered  that  he  asked 
us  if  we  objected.  We  said  no  ;  for  we  knew  it  would  take,  perhaps,  weeks  to 
make  out  all  those  records  in  full. 


566  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Edmtnds.  With  permission,  I  should  like  to  make  an  oral  inquiry,  to 
save  time,  of  counsel. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection  the  senator  from  Vermont  will 
put  his  inquiry  without  reducing  it  to  writing. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  desire  to  know  whether  this  is  offered  as  touching  any 
question  or  final  conclusion  of  fact,  or  whether  it  is  off-red  merely  as  giving  us 
a  history  of  practice  under  the  statutes  with  a  view  to  the  law  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  Entirely  for  the  last  purpose. 

Mr.^Ianager  Butlkr.  After  the  statement  of  counsel,  that  this  doe?  not  go 
to  any  issue  of  fact,  but  oidy  of  practice  under  the  law,  we  have  no  objection  to  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  objection  on  the  part  of  the  managers  is  withdrawn. 
If  there  be  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  the  evidence  will  be  admitted. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  wish  there  should  be  no  misapprehension.  This  document 
goes  to  matters  of  fact;  but  those  matters  of  fact  are  matters  of  practice  under 
the  law,  which  I  supposed  was  what  the  senator  meant. 

Mr.  Ed.munds.  That  is  what  I  understood. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then,  if  it  is  proof  of  matter  of  fact,  we  object  that 
it  is  not  proper  evidence. 

Mr.  Curtis.   Very  well. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the  President,  have  you 
reduced  your  proposition  to  writing  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chief  JusriCE.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  proposition. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  desire  to  ask  a  question  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the 
accused. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Michigan. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Before  that  question  is  read,  perhaps  it  may  be  of  service  that 
I  shoidd  ask  attention  to  what  I  have  turned  to  in  the  record,  and  that  is  the 
letter  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  which,  at  page  351  of  the  record,  introduced 
the  schedule  that  Avas  put  in  evidence  by  the  managers. 

Mr.  JoHNSO.\.  What  is  the  schedule  1 

Mr.  Evarts.  Of  heads  of  departments.     Mr.  ^Fanager  Butler  said  : 

It  is  accompanied  with  a  letter  simply  desciibiug  the  list,  which  I  will  read,  as  mere 
inducement. 

Mr.  Ci;ktis.  We  have  no  objection. 
Mr.  Manager  BUTLEK.  I  will  read  it : 

Depart.mknt  of  St.\te, 

If'ushington,  March  "26,  1868. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  the  note  wliich  j'ou  addressed  to  me  on  the  'Z'-V\  instant,  in  behalf  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  in  the   matter  of  the  impeachment  of  the  President,  1  have  the 
honor  to  submit  herewith  two  schedules,  A  and  B. 

Schedule  A  presents  a  statement  of  all  removals  of  the  heads  of  departments  made  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  during  the  session  of  the  Senate,  so  far  as  the  same  can 
be  ascertained  from  the  records  of  this  department. 

Schedule  B  cmtains  a  statement  of  all  ajjpointments  of  heads  of  departments  at  any  time 
made  by  the  Presidi'nt  witliont  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  while  the  Senate 
was  in  session,  so  far  as  the  same  apjiears  npon  the  records  of  the  Dejjartment  of  State. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 
Hon.  .John  A.  Bingham,  Chnirmun. 

Then  follows  the  list,  the  j)roducti«in  of  th-;  documents  of  which  would  have 
occupied  a  considerable  length  of  time. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  (juestion  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Michigan. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Do  the  counsel  regard  these  memoranda  as  legal  evidence  of  the  practice  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  are  thej'  offered  as  such  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  documents  I  offer  are  not  full  copies  of  auy  record.     They 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  567 

are,  tlicrefore,  not  strictly  and  technically  Ic-fjal  evirlence  for  any  purpose.  They 
are  extracts  of  facts  from  those  records.  Allow  me,  by  way  of  illustration,  to 
read  one,  so  that  the  Senate  may  see  the  nature  of  the  documents  : 

Navy  Agkncy  at  New  Yokk, 

June  20,  18G4. 
Isaac  Henderson  was.  by  direction  of  tlie  President,  retnoved  from  the  office  of  navy  af^ent 
at  New   York,    and  instructed  to  transfer   to    Paymaster  John  D.  Gibson,  United  States 
navy,  all  tire  public  funds  and  other  property  in  his  charge. 

We  do  offer  that  as  technical  legal  evidenci  of  the  f;ict  that  is  there  stated  ; 
but  having  in  view  simply  to  prove,  not  the  case  with  Mr.  Henderson,  with  its 
merits  and  the  causes  of  his  removal,  &c.,  all  of  which  would  appear  on  the 
records,  but  the  practice  of  the  government  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States; 
instead  of  taking  from  the  recoids  the  entire  documents  necessary  to  exhibit  his 
whole  case,  we  have  taken  the  only  fact  which  is  of  any  importance  in  refci-ence 
to  this  inquiry.  If  the  Senate  consider  that  they  must  adhere  to  the  technical 
rule  of  evidence,  we  must  go  to  the  records  and  have  the  records  copied  in  full, 
and,  of  course,  for  the  same  reason,  read  in  full. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwkll.  The  honorable  counsel  for  the  respondent  must  see 
that  if  they  do  not  prove  a  cascthey  do  not  prove  any  practice.  The  first  thing 
to  be  done  in  order  to  prove  a  practice  is  to  prove  one  or  more  cases  going  to 
show  what  the  practice  is.  But  the  vital  objection  to  this  testimony  which  is 
now  offered  is,  if  my  examination  of  it  is  thorough  and  accurate,  that  it  relates 
to  a  class  of  officers  who  are  and  were,  at  the  time  the  transaction  spoken  of  in 
this  memoranda  occurred,  under  a  special  provision  of  law  by  which  they  were 
created,  which  takes  them  entirely  out  of  the  line  of  precedents  for  the  purpose 
of  this  trial.  That  is  the  vital  objection  to  the  introduction  of  this  testimony. 
As  I  have  read  the  papers  hastily,  they  all  relate  to  navy  agents  and  officers 
who  were  created  by  a  statute  of  the  year  1S20,  and  in  that  statute  a  tenure  of 
office  was  established  for  the  officers  so  created — four  years,  removable  at  pleasure  ; 
and  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  go  into  any  statement  here  of  the  reasans  which 
likely  controlled  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  in  1820,  which  led  them  to 
make  that  provision.  But  having  made  that  provision,  created  these  officers, 
removable  at  pleasure,  a  practice  shown  by  facts,  few  or  many,  does  not  tend  in 
any  degree  to  enlighten  this  tribunal  upon  the  issue  on  which  they  are  now 
called  to  pass,  because  these  officers  were  created  by  a  special  statute,  had  a 
special  tenure,  and  by  that  tenure  were  made  removable  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
President ;  and  in  various  cases  undoubtedly  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
acting  in  conformity  to  that  statute,  has  removed  those  officers.  Unless  the 
counsel  for  the  respondent  are  prepared  to  say  that  in  this  file  of  papers  which 
they  now  submit  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  a  practice  has  prevailed  relating 
to  officers  not  enumerated  in  the  statute  of  1820,  then  I  say  it  is  but  a  waste  of 
the  time  of  this  tribunal,  knowing  what  those  papers  contain,  and  knowing  what 
the  statute  is,  to  permit  the  introduction  of  any  testimony  showing  a  practice 
which,  if  prevailing  and  admitted,  does  not  enlighten  us  at  all  upon  the  matters 
in  issue  here. 

Mr.  CuRTLS.  This  objection,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  has  reference 
to  the  merits  of  this  case  and  to  the  weight  and  effect  which  the  evidence  is  to 
have,  if  it  be  admitted.  We  may  have  been  uuder  an  entire  misapprehension 
as  to  the  views  of  the  honorable  managers  who  are  conducting  this  prosecution 
respecting  those  merits  ;  but  unless  we  have  been  under  such  a  misapprehension 
we  have  supposed  they  meant  to  attempt  to  maintain  that  even  if  Mr.  Stanton 
at  the  time  when  he  was  removed  held  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  even  if 
be  was  not  within  the  tenure-of-office  act,  still,  inasmuch  as  the  Senate  was  in 
session,  it  was  not  competent  for  the  President  to  remove  him  ;  and,  secondly, 
that  although  Mr.  Stanton  might  have  been  removed  by  the  President,  not  being 
within  the  tenure-of-office  act,  his  place  could  not  be  even  temporarily  supplied 


568  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

by  an  order  to  General  Thomas,  becauge  the  Senate  was  in  session,  and  there 
could  be,  thcref'ort',  no  ad  intenm  appointment  made.  It  is  with  a  view  to  meet 
that  thiit  we  introduce  this  practice  of  the  government.  It  is  with  a  view  to 
show  that  when  the  Prebideut  had  a  right  to  remove,  it  mattered  not  whether 
the  Senate  was  in  session  or  not,  that  right  might  be  exercised,  and  that  if  that 
right  should  be  exercised,  it  mattered  not  whether  the  Senate  was  in  session  or 
not,  he  might  make  an  ad  interim  appointment.  If  the  learned  managers 
will  concede  all  those  grounds  to  us,  if  they  will  agree  that  the  sole  question 
here  is  whether  Mr.  Stanton's  tenure  of  office  was  fixed  by  tliat  act,  and  if  it  was 
not  fixed  by  that  act,  that  the  President  might  remove  him  during  the  session  of 
the  Senate,  and  might  lawfully  make  an  ad  interim  appointment  during  the  ses- 
sion of  the  Senate,  ttien  we  do  not  desire  to  put  in  this  evidence. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  should  like  to  ask  the  honorable  managers  a  simple  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  no  objection  be  interposed,  the  senator  from  Ohio 
will  put  his  question  Avithout  reducing  it  to  writing. 

Mr.  Shekma.x.  It  is  whether  the  papers  now  offered  in  evidence  contain  the 
date  of  appointment  and  the  character  of  the  office  'i 

Mr.  EvART.s.  That  is  a  question  which  you  put  to  us. 

Mr.  JoH.\sOi\,   vto  Mr.  Sherman.)  You  said  "'managers." 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  beg  pardon. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  And  to  that  we  say  that  they  only  contain  the  date 
of  the  removal,  but  do  n"ot  give  us  the  date  of  the  nomination,  which  may  have 
been  weeks  and  months  before  the  date  of  the  appointment,  as  nobody  knows 
better  than  the  Senate.     That  is  the  trouble  about  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  These  documents  are  the  lecords  of  the  Navy  Department. 
Allow  me  to  lead  once  more,  to  give  you  an  illustration  of  what  they  contain  : 

NAVY  AGKXCY  AT  NEW  YORK. 

1864,  June  20. — Isaac  Ileuderson  wa.s,  by  diiectiou  of  the  President,  removed  from  the 
office  of  navy  agent  at  New  York,  aud  iiistiucted  to  tran.sfer  to  Paymaster  John  D.  Gibson, 
United  States  navy,  all  the  public  funds  and  other  property  in  hi.s  charge. 

That  is  the  character  of  the  document.  • 

Mr.  Johnson.  Does  it  give  the  date  % 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  gives  the  date  of  the  removal. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  propose  to  offer  in  evi- 
dence two  documents  from  the  Navy  Department,  exhibiting  the  practice  which 
has  existed  in  that  department  in  respect  to  removals  from  office.  To  the 
introduction  of  this  evidence  the  honorable  managers  object.  The  Chief  Jus- 
tice thinks  that  the  evidence  is  competent  in  substance,  but  that  the  qiu^stiou 
of  form  is  entirely  subject  to  the  discretion  of  the  Senate,  and  in  the  Senate  alone. 
The  whole  question,  therefore,  is  submitted  to  the  Senate.  Senators,  you  who 
are  of  opinion  that  this  evidence  should  be;  received  will,  as  your  names  arc 
called,  answer  yea  ;  those  of  tht;  contrary  opinion,  nay. 

The  question  being  then  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas,  36  ;  nays, 
15;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Autliony,  Bayard,  IJiukulew,  Cole,  Cpnkling,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dlxou, 
Doolittle,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Fessendi^n,  Fowler,  Freliiighnyseu,  Grimes,  Hendersuu,  Hen- 
dricks, Ilowe,  Jolmsdi;,  MiCifcry,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  (if  Vermont,  Morton,  Patterson 
of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ixoss,  Saiilshury,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Suumer, 
Trnnibull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  \Vilson,  and  Yates — ;?(>. 

Na\.s — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conness,  Cragin,  Drake,  Harlau,  Howard, 
Morgan,  Nye,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  'i'hayer,  Tiiitun,  and  Williams — J.'). 

Not  V(»TING— Messrs.  Norton,  Spragne,  and  Wade— 3. 

So  the  evidence  was  admitted. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Unless  the  honorable  managers  desiro  tliose   documents  to  be 
read  at  length,  we  do  not  insist  upon  it  on  our  part. 
]\Ir.  Manager  Buti.er.  We  do  not  desire  it. 
Mr.  Curtis.  Very  well;  but  1  su()pose  they  will  be  printed.     ("Certainly.") 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  569 

Tbe  documents  tliiis  ofleretl  in  evidence  are  as  follows  : 

United  States  Navy  Departmext, 

April  9,   imS. 
I  hereby  ceitity  that  the  aimexed  are  true  statements  from  tho  records  of  this  department. 

EDGAR  T.  WELLES, 

Chief  Citric. 

Be  it  krown  that  Edgar  T.  Welles,  whose  name  is  signed  to  the  above  certiticate,  is  now, 
and  was  at  the  time  of  so  sig-ning-,  chief  clerk  in  the  Navy  Department,  and  that  full  faith 
and  credit  are  due  to  all  his  official  attestations  as  such. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  andcaused  the  seal  of  the 
Navy  Department  cf  the  United  States  to  be  athxed,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  9th  day 
of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1868,  and  of  the  independence  of  tlu;  United  States  the 
ninety-second. 

[L.  s.  1  G.  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

NAVY   AGENCY   AT   PENSACOLA. 

Thomas  Eastin,  navy  agent  at  Pensacola,  was  on  19th  December,  1840,  dismissed  by 
direction  of  the  President. 

On  the  same  day  Purser  Dudley  Walker,  United  States  navy,  was  instructed,  until  other- 
wise directed,  to  act  as  navy  agent  in  addition  to  his  duties  as  purser  of  the  yard  and  station. 

January  u,  1841. — George  Johnston  was  informed  that  he  had  been  appointed,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  navy  agent  at  Pensacola  from  December  28, 1840. 

Johnston,  it  appears,  was  lost  on  the  passage  to  Pensacola. 

April  x;9,  1841. — The  President  appointed  Jackson  Morton  navy  agent  at  Pensacola. 

NAVY  AGENCY   AT   BOSTON. 

February  1,  I836. — Purser  John  N.  Todd,  United  States  navy,  was  directed  to  assume  the 
duties  ot  navy  agent  for  the  port  of  Boston,  and  continue  in  the  performance  thereof  until 
further  orders  from  the  department. 

February  1,  1838. — D.  D  Brodhead,  navy  agent,  Boston,  was  informed  that  his  requisi- 
tion for  $1U,0U0  had  been  received  and  the  amoirnt  remitted  to  John  N.  Todd,  purser  of  the 
Boston  station,  who  had  been  directed  to  discharge  the  duties  of  navy  agent  until  further 
orders. 

The  department  alluded  to  reported  embarrassments  of  his  private  affairs,  and  as  the  legal 
term  of  his  appointment  would  shortly  expire,  stated  that  it  felt  compelled,  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  to  suggest  to  him  the  propriety  of  tendering  at  this  time  his  resignation 
as  navy  agent. 

March  :3,  183S. — Daniel  D.  Brodhead,  late  navy  agent  at  Boston,  was  requested  to  pay 
over  to  John  N.  Todd,  acting  navy  agent  at  Boston,  the  amount  of  public  funds  remaining 
in-his  hands  as  agent. 

Daniel  D.  Brodhead,  having,  in  a  letter  dated  Boston,  February  28,  1838,  tendered  his 
resignation  as  navy  agent,it  was  acknowledged  and  accepted  by  the  department,  March  5, 1838. 

March  24,  1838. — Leonard  Jarvis  was  informed  of  his  having  been  appointed  by  the  Pres- 
ident, by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  navy  agent  for  the  port  of  Boston 
from  March  22.  1838,  and  John  N.  Todd  was  instructed  to  pay  over  to  him  the  amount  of 
public  funds  in  his  hands  as  acting  navy  agent. 

NAVY  AGENCY  AT  NEW  YORK. 

.June  20,  1864. — Isaac  Henderson  was,  by  direction  of  the  President,  removed  from  the 
ofHce  of  navy  agent  at  New  Yt)rk,  and  instructed  to  transfer  to  Paymaster  John  D.  Gibson, 
United  States  navy,  all  the  public  funds  and  other  property  in  his  charge. 

NAVY  AGENCY  AT  PHILADELPHIA. 

December  26,  1864. — James  S.  Chambers  was  removed  from  the  office  of  navy  agent  at 
Philadelphia,  and  instructed  to  transfer  to  Paymaster  A.  E.  Watson,  United  States  navy,  all 
the  public  funds  and  other  property  in  his  charge. 


United  States  Navy'  Department,  April  9,  1868. 
I  hereby  certify  that  the  annexed  are  true  copies  from  the  records  of  the  department. 

EDGAR  T.  WELLES,  Chief  Clerk. 

Be  it  known  that  Edgar  T.  Welles,  whose  name  is  signed  to  the  above  certificate,  is  now. 
and  was  at  the  time  of  so  signing,  chief  clerk  in  the  Navy  Department,  and  that  full  faith 
and  credit  are  due  to  all  his  official  attestations  as  such. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the 
Navy  Department  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  9th 
day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1868,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States,  the 
ninety-second. 

[L.  S.  ]  G.  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 


570  IMPEACHMENT    OF    TEIE    PRESIDENT. 

Navy  Dkpautmknt,  December  ]9,  1840. 

SrR:  Tlip  painful  duty  dovolvos  upon  me  of  iuformingf  you  that  liavius^failerl  to  settle  your 
accounts  as  required  bylaw  and  the  frequent  calls  of  the  department,  the  President' Las 
directed  that  you  be  dismissed  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

You  will,  therefore,  upon  the  receipt  of  this  communication,  consider  your  functions  as  navy 
agent  at  Pcnsacola  fo  liave  c(^ased. 

Until  the  arrival  of  your  successor,  Purser  Dudley  Walker  has  been  directed  to  actasuavy 
anient,  to  whom  you  will  turn  over  the  funds,  books,  and  papers  belonging  to  the  agency  at 
Pensacola. 

I  am,  respectfully,  &c., 

J.  K.  PAULDING. 
Thomas  Easttn,  Esq., 

Lfite  Navy  Agent,  Pensacola. 


Navy  Department,  bece.mher  19,  l-MO. 
Sir  :  I  have  directed  $9,881  to  be  remitted  to  you,  being  the  amount  of  your  requisition  of 
the  1st  November. 

You  will,  until  otherwise  directed,  act  as  navy  agent  at  Pensacola,  in  addition  to  your 
duties  as  purser  of  the  yard  and  station. 

A  further  remittance  of  $5,000  will  be  made  to  you  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  stecvmer 
Warren. 

I  am,  respectfully,  &c., 

J.  K.  PAULDING. 
Purser  Dudley  Walker, 

Care  Commodore  A.  J.  Dallas,  Nary-yiird,  Pensacola. 


Navy  Departmext,  January,  5,  1841. 

Sir  :  The  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
having  appointed  you  navy  agent  fur  the  port  of  Pensacola,  West  Florida,  for  four  years, 
from  the  "J-ith  December,  1841),  I  have  the  pleasure  to  enclose  herewith  your  commission, 
dated  the  5th  of  January,  1841. 
I  am,  respectfully,  &c., 

J.  K.  PAULDING. 
George  Johnston,  Esq., 

Navy  Agunt,  ll'as/iington. 


Navy  Department,  April  29,  1841. 
Sir:  The  President  of  the  United  States  having  appointed  you  navy  agent  for  the  port  of 
Pensacola,  West  Florida,  I  have  the  pleasure  to  enclose  herewith  your  commission. 

I  enclose  to  you  also  a  blank  bond,  which  you  will   execute  with  at  least  two  sureties,  in 
the  sum  of  $30,000,  to  be  apjjroved   by  the  United  States  judge  or  district  attorney  for  the 
district  in  which  you  reside,  and  return  to  this  department  as  soon  as  practicable. 
I  am,  respectfully,  &c., 

GEORGE  E.  BADGER, 
Jackson  Morton,  Esq., 

Navy  Agent,  Pensacola. 

Navy  Di-:partmext,  .July  16,  1841. 
Sir  :  The  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
having  appointed  you  navy  agent  for  the-  port  of  Pensacola,  Florida,  from  the  'i9th  of  April, 
1841,  I  have  the  pleasure  to  enclose  herewith  your  commission. 
I  am,  respectfully,  &c., 

GEORGE  E.  BADGE K. 
Japkson  Morton,  Esq.,  Navy  Agent,  Pensacola. 


Navy  Department,  October  2,  1841. 
Sir:  Jackson  Morton,  Esq.,  navy  agent  for  Pensacola,  has  apprised  this  department  of 
his  intention  to  proceed  immediately  to  that  place  to  enter  on  the  discharge  of  his  duties. 

Upon  his  arrival  you  will  transfer  to  him  all  th<'  moneys  and  pjoperty  belonging  to  the 
agency,  and  take  his  receipt  for  the  same,  which  will  bo  a  sufficient  voucher  in  the  settlement 
of  your  accounts  in  the  office  of  the  Fourth  Auditor. 
I  am,  respectfully,  cVc, 

J.  I).  SIMMS. 
Acting  Secretary  of  the  Nary. 
I'urser  D.  Walker,  Acting  Navy  Agent,  Pensacola. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  571 

Navy  Dki'autment,  Fihruary  1,  1333. 
SlU:   Your  requisition  for  $10,000  liiis  bocu  received,  iuul  the  iiuiount  remitted  to  Julm  N. 
Todd,  jiurser  of  tin-  liostou  st;itioii,  who  hu.s  been  directed  to  discharge  tlie  duties  of  navy 
agent  until  further  orders. 

Tiie  department  regrets  tiuit  tlie  rei)ortcil  embarrassment  of  your  private  affairs,  and  the 
couditiim  of  the  banks  in  lioston,  particularly  that  in  which  you  have  kept  your  public 
accounts,  renders  this  course  necessary. 

As  the  legal  term  of  your  appointment  will  shortly  expire,  the  department  feels  compelled, 
under  tlie  circumstances  of  the  case,  to  suggest  to  you  the  propriety  of  tendering  at  this  time 
your  resignation  as  navy  agent. 

lam,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

M.  DICKERSON. 
D.  D.  Brodhead,  Esq.,  Nary  Agent,  Boston. 

Navy  Department,  February  1,  1833. 

Sir  :  I  have  this  day  authorized  to  be  remitted  to  you  $10,000  under  pay  and  sub.— 
This  remittance  is  made  to  you  with  a  view  to  your  assumption  of  the  duties  of  navy  agent 
for  the  port  of  Boston,  in  addition  to  jour  present  duty,  which  you  will  do  on  receipt  of  this, 
and  continue  in  the  performance  thereof  until  further  orders  from  the  department. 
I  am,  respectfully,  yoin-  obedient  servant, 

M.  DICKERSON. 
John  N.  Todd,  Purser,  United  States  Navy-yard,  Boston. 


Boston,  February  28,  1838. 
Sir  :  Some  time  since  I  received  a  letter  from  you  stating  that  Purser  Todd  was  charged 
with  the  duties  of  navy  agent  in  my  place,  and  giving  the  reasons  of  the  department  therefor. 
Without  concurring  in  the  opinions  of  the  department,  but  solely  to  relieve  it  and  the  govern- 
ment from  any  supposed  responsibility  or  embarrassment  in  relation  to  my  position,  I  have 
the  honor  to  tender  you  my  resignation  as  navy  agent  for  this  port,  believing  that  you,  as 
well  as  all  others  having  oifficial  business  with  me,  can  bear  testimony  that  I  have  faithfully 
and  satistactorily  performed  all  my  duties  as  a  public  oificer. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

DANIEL  D.  BRODHEAD. 
Hon.  M.  Dk.'KER.SON,  Secretory  of  the  N'ury,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Navy  Department,  March  3,  1838. 
Sir:  I  request  that  you  will  pay  over  to  John  N.  Todd,  acting  navy  agent  at  Boston,  the 
amount  of  public  fund's  remaining  in  your  hands  as  navy  agent,  for  which  his  receipt  will  be 
to  you  a  sufficient  voucher. 
\\'hen  I  last  saw  you  you  assured  me  that  I  should  hear  from  you  in  24  hours. 
I  regret  very  much  being  left  in  the  condition  I  am  as  to  the  navy  agent  at  Boston. 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

M.  DICKERSON. 
Daniel  D.  Brodhead,  Late  Navy  Agent,  Boston. 


Navy'  Department,  March  5,  1838. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  23th  ultimo,  resigning  your  office  of  navy  agent  for  the  port  of  Bos- 
ton, has  been  received,  and  your  resignation  is  accepted. 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

■      M.  DICKERSON. 
D.  D.  Brodhead,  Esq.,  Late  Navy  Agent,  Boston. 


Navy  Department,  March  24,  1338. 
Sir  :  Leonard  Jarvis,  Esq.,  of  Boston,  has  been  appointed  navy  agent  for  that  port  in  place 
of  D.  D.  Brodhead,  resigned.     You  will  therefore  pay  over  to  Mr.  Jarvis  the  amount  of  public 
money  in  your  hands  as  acting  navy  agent,  and  his  receipt  will  be  to  you  a  proper  voucher 
in  the  settlement  of  your  accounts. 

So  much  of  your  requisition  of  the  13th  instant  as  has  been  approved  will  be  remitted  to 
the  new  agent  with  as  little  delay  as  practicable. 

I  am,  very  respectfuUv,  vour  obedient  servant, 

M.  DICKERSON. 
John  N.  Todd,  Esq.,  Acting  Navy  Agent,  Boston. 


Navy  Department,  March  24,  1633. 
Sir  :    Y'ou  having  been  appointed  navy  agent  for  the  port  tf  Boston,  I  have  this  day 
authorized  to  be  remitted  to  you  $53,014  51,  under  various  heads  of  appropriations,  being, 
the  amount  of  the  requisitions  of  the  acting  navy  agent  of  the  13th  instant,  so  far  as  the 
same  were  approved. 


572  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  actinw  navy  ag^ent,  Purser  Jolm  N.  Todd,  bas  been  instructed  to  pay  over  to  you  the 
public  money  in  bis  hands  as  agent. 

Instructions  with  regard  to  your  duties  as  navy  agent  will  be  transmitted  to  you  by  the 
Fourth  Auditor  of  the  Treasury. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

M.  DICKERSON. 
Leonard  Jarvis,  Esq.,  havy  Agent,  Boston. 


Navy  Department,  March  24,  1833. 
Sir  :  The  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
having  appointed  you  navy  agent  for  four  years  frcMu  the  2'id  of  March,  If^'-iS,  I   have  the 
pleasure  to  enclose  herewith  your  commission,  dated  the  ■24th  of  March,  ldl38. 
I  am,  respectfully,  yours, 

M.  DICKERSON. 
Leonard  Jarvis,  Esq.,  Navy  Agent,  Boston. 


N.'iVY  Department,  June  20,  1864. 
Sir  :  By  direction  of  the  President  of  the  LTnited  States,  you  are  hereby  removed  fiom  the 
oiBce  of  navy  agent  at  New  York,  and  you  will  iuunediately  transfer  to  paymaster  John  D. 
Gibson,  paymaster  United  States  navy,  all  the  public  funds  and  other  property  in  your  charge. 
Aery  respectfully, 

GIDEON  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Nary. 
Isaac  Henderson,  Esq.,  Navy  Agent,  New  York. 


Navy  Department,  June  20,  1864. 
Sir:  You  are  hereby  relieved  from  the  inspection  of  provisions  and  clothing  at  tiie  Brook- 
lyn navy  yard,  and  will  at  once  assume  the  duties  usually  appertaining  to  the  ofrlce  of  navy 
agent  at  the  city  of  New  York. 

Mr.  Henderson  has  been  instructed  to  turn  over  to  you  the  public  funds  and  other  property 
in  his  possession,  for  which  you  will  receipt  to  him.  You  will  not  permit  liim  to  remove  from 
the  office  any  of  the  books,  papers,  or  vouchers,  until  the  further  order  of  the  dejiartment,  but 
you  will  allow  him  to  place  in  the  ofdce  an  agent  (should  he  desire  to  do  so)  to  juotect  his 
interests  and  see  that  the  books  and  papers  necessary  to  the  settlement  of  his  accounts  are 
not  used  in  a  mariner  to  destroy  their  value  as  vouchers.  You  will  be  careful  to  do  nothing 
to  affect  in  auy  way  the  liability  of  Mr.  Henderson  or  his  sureties  to  the  government. 

The  chief  of  the  bureau  of  provisions  and  clothing  will  explain  to  you  in  person  the  views 
of  the  department. 

Very  respectfully, 

GIDEON  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 
Paymaster  John  D.  Giisson, 

United  States  Nary,  Brooklyn,  New  York. 


Navy  Department,  December  26,  1864. 
Sir:   By  direction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  you  are  hereby  removed  from  the 
ofHce  of  the  navy  agent  at  Philadelphia,  and  you  will  immediately  transfer  to  Paymaster  A. 
E.  Watson,  United  States  navy,  all  the  public  funds  and  other  property  in  your  charge. 
Very  respectfully, 

GIDEON  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 
James  S.  Chambers,  Esq.,  Navy  Agent,  Philadelphia. 

Navy  Department,  Decemher  26,  1864. 
Sir:  Mr.  James  S.  Chambers,  navy  agent,  Philadelphia,  has  been  instrircted  to  turnover 
to  you  the  public  funds  and  other  government  property  in  his  possession,  for  which  you  will 
receipt  to  him,  and  you  will  at  once  assume  the  duties  usually  appertaining  to  the  office  of 
navy  agent.  You  will  not  permit  Mr.  Chambers  to  remove  from  the  otlice  any  of  the  books, 
papers,  or  vouchers,  until  the  further  ordiu'  of  the  department,  but  you  will  allow  him  to 
place;  in  the  office  an  agent  (should  he  desire  to  do  so)  to  protect  his  interests  and  see  that 
the  books  and  papers  necessary  to  the  settlement  of  his  accounts  are  not  used  in  a  manner  to 
destroy  their  value  as  voucher.s.  You  will  be  careful  to  do  nothing  to  affect  in  an}'  way  tlie 
liability  of  Mr.  Chambers  or  his  sureties  to  the  government. 

Should  Mr.  Cliauibers  reserve  a  portion  of  the  funds  iu  his  possession  to  meet  outstanding 
checks,  the  assistant  treasurer  has  been  requested  not  to  honor  them  unless  indorsed  by 
you  as  correct.     You  will  see  that  they  have  been  given  for  actual  government  dues. 

Your  office  will  be  kept  open  at  least  during  the  ordinary  banking  hours  in  Philadeliihia. 
Very  respectfully, 

GIDEON  WELLi:S,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 
Paymaster  A.  E.  Watson, 

United  States  Navy,  Philadelphia. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


573 


Mr.  Curtis.  There  is  one  other  document  from  the  Navy  Department  which 
I  suppose  i^  not  distinguishable  from  tho?e  that  hive  just  been  admitted.  It 
purports  to  be  a  list  of  all  civil  officers  of  that  department  appointed  for  four 
years  under  the  statute  of  May  1/),  1820,  and  removable  from  offica  at  pleasure, 
who  were  removed  as  indicated,  their  terms  of  office  not  having  expired.  Then 
comes  a  list  giving  the  name  of  the  officer,  the  date  of  his  origin.il  appointment, 
the  date  of  his  removal,  and  by  whom  removed,  in  a  tabular  form. 

Mr.  JoH.NSON.   Does  it  give  the  date  of  the  appointment  of  his  successor? 

Mr.  Curtis.  No  ;  there  is  nothing  said  about  his  successor.  It  is  merely  the 
act  of  removal  of  the  officer. 

(The  document  was  presented  to  the  maoagers  and  examined  by  them.) 

Mr.  JManager  Butler.  We  only  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to 
the  fact  that  it  does  not  contain  a  very  material  thing  which  our  schedule  con- 
tains, to  wit  :  a  statement  whether  the  Senate  was  or  was  not  in  session. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  shall  get  that  in  another  form. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Nor  who  was  nominated  in  the  place. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  evidence  is  admitted  unless  there  be  some  objec- 
tion. 

The  document  is  (with  the  same  attestation  from  the  Navy  Department  as 
the  two  preceding  ones)  as  follows  : 

Table  B. 

Civil  (ifficers  appointed  foi-  Jour  years  under  the  statute  of  May  15,  1820,  and 
"  Remocable  from  office  at  i>}easure,^^  who  were  removed  as  indicated,  their 
tenns  of  office  not  having  expired. 

NAVY    agents. 


Names. 

Date   of   original 
appointment. 

Term. 

Date  of  removal. 

By  whom    re- 
moved. 

E.  Swartwout  .. 

17  October,  1818 

18  March,  1827.... 
6  May,  1826 

3  March,  1829.... 

4  March,   1829.... 
1  July,  1829 

11  July,  1829 

3  March,  1833.... 

29  April,  1841 

31  August,  1841  ... 

1  July,  1844 

J  April,  1845 

8  April,  1845 

5  Ji;ne,  1849.... 
27  June,  1849 

do 

24  September,  1849. 

1  November,  1850. 

5  April,  18.53 

.' do  

The  President. 

Amos  Biuuey 

James  Beatty 

Miles  King: 

J.  M.  Sherburne.. 

N.  Amory 

George  Harrison . . 

Not  known 

Do. 

17  May,  1810 

Do. 

27  March.   1810 

Do. 

25  June,  IS28 

31  October,  1827. .. 

4  years  . 
...do 

Do. 
Do. 

21  Noveud)er,  1799. 

27  April,  1830 

1 1  October,  1833... 

Do. 

John  Laighton  . .. 
John  Thomas 

4  years 

Do. 
Do. 

E.  C.  Wetmore... 
I.  V.  Browne 

S.  McCh'llan 

William  B.  Scott.. 

Joseph  Hale 

S.   \V.  Smith 

18  March,  1841  .... 
20  September,  1841. 
31  August,  1841  ... 

8  October,  1848... 

19  June,  1840 

4  years . 
...do.... 
...do.... 
...do.... 
...do.... 

Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do 
Do. 

8  July,  1840 

3  July,  1848 

...do.... 
...do 

Do. 
Do. 

George  Lay  all 

0.  H.  Ladd 

AVilliain   Hindman 

13  March,  1849    ... 

...do 

Do. 

28  June,  1852 

do 

10  August,   1850... 

2-5  August,  1850 

1  April,  1858  .    ... 

...do.-.. 
...do.... 
...do.... 
...do.... 
...do 

Do. 
Do. 

B.  D.  Wright  .... 

E.  0.  Perrin 

William  Flinn . 

12  April,  1853 

28  May,  1853 

10  April,  1801 

12  April,  1801 

16  April,  1801 

18  April,  1801 

1  May,  18()1 

6  May,  1801 

■  2  May,  1801 

20  Juue,  1804 

26  December,  1864. 

Do. 
Do. 

Do. 

N.  F.  Amnudown. 
H.  G.  S.  Key  .... 
H.  F.  Wanlell.... 
William    Badsrcr.. 

8  February,  1859  . 
27  February,  1860  . 

20  May,  1858 

do 

...do.... 

...do.... 

...do.... 

do 

]^0. 

Do. 
Do. 
Do. 

William  F.  Russell 

A.  E.  Sniith 

Isaac  Hiudersou. . 
J.  S.  Cluimbers. .. 

27  Juue,  1800 

16  December,   1857. 

19  July.  1801 

do 

...do.... 
...do.... 
...do.... 
...do.... 

Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 

Mr.  Curtis  sent  a  large  mass  of  documents  to  the  managers  to  be  examined. 


574  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Ohif.f  Justice.  Will  the  counsel  ?tate  what  he  proposes  to  oflFer? 

Mr.  CiRTis.  These  are  documents  from  the  Department  of  State  showing  the 
removal  of  officers  not  only  during  the  session  of  the  Senate  but  during  the  recess, 
and  covering  all  cases  of  vacancy,  the  purpose  of  the  evidence  being  to  show 
the  practice  of  the  government  co-extensive  with  the  necessity  that  arises  out  of 
the  different  cases — death,  resignation,  sickness,  absence,  removal.  It  differs 
from  the  scheoule  which  has  been  put  in  by  the  learned  managers,  which  cov- 
ered certain  heads  of  departments  only,  because  that  applies  only  to  removals 
during  the  session  of  the  Senate.  It  includes  that,  but  it  includes  a  great  deal 
more  matter. 

Sir.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  prepared  for  myself  the  same  list.  In  order 
that  the  Senate  may  see  exactly  what  the  character  is,  and  may  judge  then  how 
far  this  may  be  competent,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  one,  the  first  one 
that  opens,  not  by  any  manner  the  first  in  order,  but  the  first  one  that  happens  : 

M.4Y27,  J836. 

I  hereby  appoint  C.  A.  Harris  to  perform  the  duties  of  Acting  Secretary  of  War  during  the 
temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary  for  tbe  Department  of  War. 

ANDREW  JACKSON. 

Now  I  will  turn  over  to  the  next  page : 

I  hereby  authorize  and  appoint  Aaron  O.  Dayton,  chief  clerk  of  the  Department  of  State, 
to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  temporary  absence  of  that  officer  from 
the  s^t  of  government. 

M.  VAN  BUREN. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  What  is  the  date  ? 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  June  28,  1837. 
Again  : 

I  authorize  J.  L.  Martin,  chief  clerk  of  the  Department  of  State,  to  perform  the  duties  of 
Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  that  officer  from  the  seat  of  government. 

MARTIN  VAN  BUREN. 

That  is  dated  0<;tober  16,  1840.     Again  : 

Washington  City,  July  5,  1834. 
I  appoint  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of  the  Navy  Department,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 
to  perform,  during  tbe  absence  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  the  duties  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  Department. 

ANDREW  JACKSON. 

There  are  but  two  exceptions  in  all  these  cases  to  the  form  I  have  given,  in 
various  modes  of  expression. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  suppose  it  is  not  a  question  now  what  is  to  be  the  effect  of  the 
evidence;  but  do  you  object  to  it? 

Mr.  ]\Ianagcr  Butler.  We  object  to  it  for  any  purpose.  It  is  handed  to  me 
as  a  mass,  and  I  want  to  state  what  it  is,  and  then  I  will  tell  you  Avhat  1  object 
to;  I  cannot  do  so  before.  1  have  now  given  you  all  the  forms  with  two  single 
exceptions.  The  first  exception  is  that  frequently  the  language;  of  the  letter  of 
appointment,  like  the  one  I  have  read,  has  been  given  to  cover  possible  contin- 
gencies. For  instance,  Asbury  Dickins  is  appointed  to  act  as  St-cretary  of  the 
Treasury,  "when  the  Secretary  shall  be  absent,"  looking  to  the  future,  expect- 
ing that  he  v.'ould  be  absent  on  such  a  day.  Then  there  an;  three  other  cases, 
one  a  case  in  President  Monroe's  time,  where  he  appointed  an  acting  Secretary, 
reciting  the  act  of  1792.  There  is  one  in  John  Quiucy  Adams's  time,  reciting 
the  act  of  179.2.  There  is  one  in  General  Jackson's  time,  reciting  that  the 
appointment  was  under  the  act  of  1792.  These  are  the  only  three  in  all  this 
list  that  recite  the  act  under  which  they  are  made.  All  the  others  are  temporary, 
are  in  cases  of  death  or  temporary  absences  from  the  seat  >>i  government  coming 
within  the  exact  terms  of  the  law  of  1792  or  1795. 

I  have  stated  what  these  cases  areT  Now,  the  simj)le  question  is — 1  am  not 
going  to  argue  it — will  the  Senate  permit  a  series  of  acts,  done  under  the  law, 
aud  exactly  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  1792  and  1795,  reciting,  where  they 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  575 

recited  any  law,  the  act  of  179.2,  to  be  introduced  as  evidence  upon  the  trial  of  a 
case  for  an  act  which  is  in  violation  of  the  act  of  March  2,  1867,  and  in  violation 
of  the  act  of  February  20,  1863?  Does  it  throw  any  light — tliat  is  to  say,  is 
there  such  a  practice  of  the  j^overnment  shown  by  this  as  throws  any  light  upon 
the  qui'stion  now  in  i)earing?  It  goes  to  the  country,  it  goes  to  the  Senate,  that 
here  are  a  large  lot  of  appointments.  True;  but  these  appointments  are  in  con- 
formity with  the  law,  reciting  the  law  when  they  recite  any  law  at  all,  and 
always  reciting  the  exact  circumstances  to  which  the  law  applies.  Now,  are 
these  to  go  in  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  what  is  admitted  in  the  answer  to  be 
a  breach  of  the  law,  if  the  law  is  constitutional? 

Mr.  (JuKTls."  I  do  not  wish  to  reply,  Mr.  Chief  Justice.  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  Senate  will  not  settle  any  question  as  to  the  merits  of  this  case  under 
|he  acts  of  Congress  when  we  are  putting  in  evidence. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  the  evidence  is  admis- 
sible within  the  decisions  already  made  Of  the  value  of  it,  when  admitted, 
the  Senate  will  judge,  if  any  senator  desires  the  question  to  be  put  to  the 
Senate,  the  Chief  Justice  will  be  happy  to  put  it.  (After  a  pause.)  The  evi- 
dence is  admitted. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  do  not  desire  to  have  the  documents  read.  They  are  very 
voluminous,  and  will  take  time,  and  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  read  them,  we 
think,  or  have  them  read. 

The  documents  thus  offered  in  evidence  are  attested  by  the  Secretary  of  State 
in  the  usual  form  to  be  copied  from  the  records  of  his  department,  and  contain 
the  letters  of  authority,  designation,  or  appointment  in  the  following  cases : 

On  the  23cl  of  November,  1819,  Christopher  Vanderventcr,  chief  clerk  of  the  War  Depart' 
Dieiit,  was  authorized  by  Presideut  Monroe,  under  the  act  of  May  8,  17'J"2,  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  War  during  the  illness  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  secretary  for  that  depart- 
ment. 

Ou  the  7th  of  March,  1825.  President  J.  Q.  Adams  appointed  Samuel  L.  Southard,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Navy,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  ot  War,  that  office  having  become 
vacant,  until  the  vacancy  should  be  tilled. 

On  the  2b'th  of  January,  1829,  President  J.  Q.  Adams  appointed  Samuel  L.  Southard,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Navy,  under  the  authority  conferred  by  the  act  of  May  8,  1/92,  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  until  a  successor  should  be  appointed  to  Richard  Rush, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  he  being  unable  to  perform  his  duties  by  severe  illness,  or  until 
the  inability  should  cease. 

Ou  the  4th  of  March,  1829,  President  .Jackson  appointed  James  A.  Hamilton  to  take  charge 
of  the  Department  of  State  until  Governor  Van  Euren  should  arrive  in  the  city. 

Ou  the  24th  of  April,  1829,  President  Jackson  appointed  Asbury  Dickens  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  rujtil  the  return  of  Mr.  Ingham  to  the  city. 

On  the  7lh  of  July,  1829,  President  Jackson  appointed  William  B.  Lewis  acting  Secretary 
of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

Ou  the  CJth  of  July,  1829,  President  Jackson  appointed  Richard  H.  Bradford  to  take  charge 
of  the  Navy  Department  and  perform  the  duties  thereof  in  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy. 

On  the  i9th  of  August,  1829,  President  Jackson  appointed  William  B.  Lewis  acting  Sec- 
retary of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Ou  the 7th  of  November,  1829,  President  Jackson  appointed  J.  G.  Randolph  to  perform 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  W^ar  until  the  return  of  the  Secretary,  John  H.  Eaton,  he  being 
absent. 

On  the  12th  of  June,  1830,  President  Jackson  authorized  Philip  G.  Randolph  to  act  as 
Secretar}'  of  War  while  John  H.  Eaton,  tlie  Secretary,  should  be  absent. 

Ou  the  8th  of  March,  1831,  President  Jackson  authorized  Philip  G.  Randolph  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  War  during  the  confinement  of  the  Secretary  by  sickness. 

Ou  the  rjth  of  March,  1831,  President  Jackson  authorized  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Navy  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during  the  necessary  absence  of  Mr. 
Branch,  the  Secretary,  from  the  duties  of  the  department. 

Ou  the  12th  of  May,  1831,  President  Jack.son  authorized  .John  Boyle  to  take  charge  of  the 
office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  and  perform  its  duties  imtil  a  successor  to  Air.  John 
Branch,  the  Secretary,  who  had  nuti tied  the  President  lliat  he  should  leave  the  city  "  this 
day,"  could  be  appointed,  and  arrive  and  take  charge  of  the  ofiice. 

On  the  16th  of  June,  1.-53 J,  Presideut  Jackson  authorized  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Navy  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during  the  absence  from  the  seat  of  gov- 
ernment of  Levi  Woodbury,  the  Secretary. 


576  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

On  the  18th  of  Jubo,  1831,  Presiilent  Jackson  authoiized  Philip  G.  Randolph,  chief  clerk 
in  the  War  OfHce,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  that  office  until  u  successor  to  Major  Eaton 
should  be  appointed. 

On  the  -Jlt-t  of  June,  1831,  President  Jackson  appointed  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Treasury  Drpartinent,  to  perform  the  duties  required  by  law  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  until  the  arrival  of  Mr.  McLaue,  appointed  successor  to  Mr.  Infjham. 

On  the  'iOth  of  July,  1831,  President  Jackson  appointed  Rofjer  B.  Taney,  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, to  take  charge  of  the  Department  of  War  "on  the  21st  instant,  and  execute  the  duties 
thereof  until  the  arrival  of  Governor  Cass." 

On  the  lOth  of  August,  1831,  President  Jackson  authorized  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Navj'  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  in  the  absence  of  the  Secretary,  Levi 
W^oodbury,  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  10th  of  August,  1831,  President  Jackson  appointed  Daniel  Brent,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Department  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary 
from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  ]2ih  of  September,  1831,  President  Jackson  authorized  Roger  B.  Taney,  Attorney 
General,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  during  the  absence  from  the  seat  of  government  of 
Governor  Cass. 

On  the  13th  of  September,  1831,  President  Jackson  appointed  Louis  McLane,  Si^cretary 
of  the  Treasury,  to  take  charge  of  the  War  Department  during  the  absence  of  Governor 
Cass,  Secretary,  and  Roger  B.  Taney,  acting  Secretary. 

On  the  I8th  of  October,  1831,  President  Jackson  appointed  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Treasury  Department,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the 
absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  18th  of  October,  1831,  President  Jackson  authorized  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of 
the  Navy,  to  take  charge  of  the  Department  of  War  and  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of 
War,  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

On  the  ]7th  of  March,  1832,  President  Jackson  authorized  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Treasury  Department,  to  take  charge  of  that  department  and  perform  the  duties  of  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  during  the  indisposition  of  Mr.  McLane. 

On  the  8th  of  June,  1832,  President  Jackson  authorized  John  Robb,  chief  clerk  of  the 
War  Department,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War  during  the  absence  of  the 
Secretary. 

On  tlie  16th  of  Jul.y,  1832,  President  .Jackson  appointed  John  Robb,  chief  clerk  of  the 
War  Department,  to  act  as  Secretarj'  of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretarj-. 

On  the  21st  of  July,  1833,  President  Jackson  appointed  Dauiel  Brent,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Department  of  State,  to  exercise  the  duties  and  perform  the  functions  of  Secretary  of  State 
'"iu  the  eveut  of  the  absence  from  the  seat  of  government  of  the  Secretary  during  the  pres 
eut  summer  or  approaching  autumn,  and  during  the  continuance  of  such  absence." 

On  the  23d  of  July,  1832,  President  Jackson  appointed  John  Boyle  to  discharge  the  duties 
of  Secretary  of  the  Navy  "in  the  ab.-^ence  of  the  Secretary  at  any  time  between  this  date 
and  the  1st  of  October  next." 

On  the  I8th  of  July,  l.'^33,  President  Jackson  authorized  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Treasury  Department,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  iu  case  of  the 
absence  from  the  seat  of  government  or  sickness  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  8ih  of  November,  J832,  President  Jackson  authorized  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Treasury  Department,  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  perform 
the  duties  of  that  office. 

On  I  he  I2lli  of  November,  1832,  President  Jackson  authorized  John  Robb,  chief  clerk  of 
the  War  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  Cith  of  May,  1833,  President  Jackson  appointed  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Treasury  Department,  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  the  absenc-e 
of  that  officer  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  till)  of  May,  1833,  President  Jackson  appointed  John  Robb  acting  Secretary  of 
War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  Kit)]  of  ^May,  Ib33,  President  Jackson  authorized  I.,ouis  McLaue,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  to  perform  tlie  duties  and  functions  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of 
Edward  Livingston  frum  the  seat  uf  government. 

On  the  21)tli  of  May,  1833,  Putsident  Jackson  authorized  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Treasury  Department,  to  pi-rform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  foi  and  during 
the  abseru-e  of  that  officer  from  llie  seat  of  government. 

On  the  .'-th  of  June,  1833,  President  Jackson  authorized  Daniel  Brent,  chief  clerk  in  the 
Deitartnient  »i'  Slate,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  durnig  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  from 
the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  (ith  of  .June,  1833,  President  Jackson  appointed  John  Robb  to  be  acting  Secretary 
of  \\'ar  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  r)tli  of  June,  li^33.  President  Jackson  ajipointed  J(din  Boyle  to  bo  acting  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  "during  the  absence  at  any  time  witliiu  the  present  year  of  the  honorable  Levi 
Woodbury." 

On  the  13th  of  June,  1833,  President  Jackson  appointed  Daniel  Brent  to  perform  the  duties 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  577 

of  Secretary  of  State  if  the  Secretary  should  "be  at  any  time  indisposed  or  absent  from  i\vi 
seat  of  g'ovenniieut. " 

Ou  the  lOth  of  Aup;nst,  1833,  President  Jackson  authorized  Asbury  Dickins,  "should  tlie 
Secretary  of  State  be  sick  or  absent  from  the  seat  of  t^overnineut  before  my  return  to  Wasli- 
iugton,"  to  perform  the  duties  duriucr  sueli  sickness  or  absence. 

On  the  2dth  of  September,  IS'SA,  President  Jackson  appointed  JoluiKobb  actinj^  Secretary 
of  War  in  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  1 1th  of  NovendxM",  1833,  President  Jackson  authorized  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  cleric 
of  the  l)epartment  of  State,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  ab>ence  of 
the  Secretary  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  2.')th  of  June,  1834,  President  Jackson  authorized  McClintock  Young  to  take 
charge  of  tlie  Department  of  the  Treasury  until  a  successor  to  Mr.  Taney,  resigned,  .slioidd 
be  appointed. 

On  the  5th  of  July,  1834,  President  .Jackson  appointed  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Nav3'  Department,  to  be  acting  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during  the  absence  of  tlie  Secretary. 

Ou  the  8th  of  July,  1834,  President  Jackson  authorized  Asburj'  Dickins,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Department  of  State,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  in  case  of  the  death,  ab- 
sence from  the  seatof  government,  or  sickness  of  the  Secretary  of  State  "  duringmy  absence.'' 

On ,  President  Jackson  authorized  John  Forsj'th  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Sec- 
retary of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On ,  President  Jackson  authorized  M.  Dickerson  to  discharge  the  duties  of  .Sec- 
retary of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  8th  of  May,  ]8;i4.  President  Jackson  appointed  Mahlon  Dickerson  acting  Secretary 
of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

Ou  the  lltii  of  October,  1834,  President  Jackson  appointed  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  that  officer 
from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  I9th  of  Jaiuiary,  1835,  President  Jackson  authorized  Mahlon  Dickerson,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Navy,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War  during  the  illness  of  that  officer 

Oa  the  'id  of  May,  J 835,  President  Jackson  authorized  Asbury  Dickins  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Forsyth  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  7th  of  May,  1835,  President  Jackson  appointed  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of  the  Navy 
Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Dickerson  from  the 
seat  of  government. 

On  the  18th  of  May,  1835,  President  Jackson  appointed  Gary  A.  Harris  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  tith  of  July,  1835,  President  Jackson  appointed  Asbury  Dickins  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Forsyth. 

On  the  1st  of  July,  1835,  President  Jackson  designated  McClintock  Young  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "  at  any  periods  of  absence  by  the  present  Secretary 
during  the  ensuing  mouths." 

On  the  31st  of  August,  1 835,  Presid  nt  Jackson  authorized  A.sbury  Dickins  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr  Forsyth  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  28ch  of  September,  1835,  President  Jackson  authorized  Asbury  Dickins  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Forsyth  from  the  seat  of  government. 

Ou  the  •2(lth  of  October,  1835,  President  Jackson  empowered  McCliatock  Young  to  per- 
form the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  "while  the  present  Secretary  is  absent  from  the  city  of 
Washington." 

On  the  'i3d  of  October,  1835,  C.  A.  Harris  was  appointed  by  President  Jackson  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  8ecretaiy. 

On  April  '29,  183t5,  C.  A.  Harris  was  appointed  by  President  Jackson  to  act  as  Secretary 
of  War  during  tlie  temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  27 th  of  May,  1836,  President  Jackson  authorized  0.  A.  Harris  to  act  as  Secretary 
of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

Ou  the  7th  of  July,  J836,  Pre.-jideut  Jackson  empowered  Asbury  Dickins,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Department  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  "  in  case  of  the  death,  abseuce  from 
the  seat  of  government,  or  inability  of  the  Secretary  during  my  absence  from  the  seat  of 
government." 

On  the  yth  of  July,  1S3(),  President  Jackson  appointed  .John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Navy  Department,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  ot  the  Navy  during  the  abseuce  of 
Mahlon  Dickerson,  Secretary,  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  18th  of  July,  183(i,  President  Jackson  authorized  C.  A.  Harris  to  act  as  Secretary 
of  War  during  the  temporary  abseuce  of  that  officer  from  the  seat  of  government. 

Ou  the  8th  of  September,  18.iG,  President  Jackson  authorized  C.  A.  Harris  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  that  officer  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  5th  of  October,  1830,  President  Jacksou  authorized  0.  A.  Harris  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  that  officer  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  25th  of  October,  1(336,  President  Jacksou  autliorized  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  Attorney 

37  I  P 


578  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

General,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War,  that  oifice  having  become  vacant,  until  the  vacancy 
should  be  filled. 

On  the  2Sth  of  June,  18:57,  Pre-;idcnt  Van  Buren  authorized  Aaron  O.  Dayton,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  tempo- 
rary absence  of  that  officer  from  the  seat  of  government 

On  the  •iOtli  of  October,  J837,  President  Van  ]5iiren  autliorized  McClintock  Young  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "whenever  that  officer  may  be  absent  from 
tlie  seat  of  government." 

On  the  27th  of  October,  1837,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Navj'  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  daring  tlie  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  21st  of  July,  1838,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Navy  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  Jst  of  July,  1838,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  McC.  Young  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary,  and  in  case  of  the  illness  or 
absence  of  Mr.  Young,  Samuel  McKean  to  perform  the  duties. 

On  the  21st  of  July,  1838,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  Aaron  Vail,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Department  of  State,  to  discharge  the  functions  of  Secretary  of  State  "  in  the  event  of  the 
ab.seuce  of  the  Secretary  from  the  seat  of  government." 

On  the  6th  of  October,  1838,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  John  Boyle,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Navy  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  24th  of  April,  1839,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  McClintock  Young  to  perform 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  8th  of  June,  1839,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  Aaron  Vail,  chief  clerk  of  the 
State  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  during  the  abseuce  of  the  Secretary  from  the 
seat  of  goverimient. 

On  ttie  15th  of  June,  1839,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  McClintock  Young  to  act  as 
Secretary  "in  the  event  of  the  sickness  or  abseuce  of  Levi  Woodbury  between  this  date  and 
the  10th  of  October  next." 

On  the  28th  of  August,  1840,  President  Van  Buren  authorized  J.  L.  Martin,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence 
(if  that  officer  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  16th  of  October,  184U,  President  Van  Buren  autliorized  J.  L.  Martin,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of 
that  officer  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  1841,  President  Van  Buren  appointed  McClintock  Young,  chief 
clerk  of  the  Treasury  Department,  to  perform  temporarily  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  until  a  successor  to  Mr.  Woodbury,  resigned,  should  be  sworn  into  office  accord- 
ing to  law. 

On  the  19th  of  March,  1841,  President  Harrison  appointed  John  D.  Simms  Acting  Secre- 
tary of  the  Navy  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  27th  of  April,  1841,  President  Tyler  appointed  Daniel  Fletcher  Webster,  chief 
clerk  of  ihe  Departujeut  of  State,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  in  the  absence 
of  tliat  officer  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  13th  of  Se])tember,  1841,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Young  to  perform 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  until  a  successor  to  Mr.  Ewing,  late  Secretary, 
should  be  appointed,  qualified,  and  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  head  of  the 
Treasury  Department. 

On  the  2Uth  of  October,  1841,  President  Tyler  appointed  William  S.  Derrick  to  perforin 
the  duties  of  Acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Daniel  Fletcher  Webster, 
"  now  performing  those  duties,"  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  3()th  of  October,  1841,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Young  Acting  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury. 

On  the  14th  of  December,  1842,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Young  to  perform 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Hon.  Walter  Forward  from  the 
city  of  Washington. 

On  the  3Uth  of  June,  1842,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Young  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  abseuce  of  Hon.  Walter  Forward  from  the  city 
of  Washington. 

On  the  2Uth  of  July,  1842,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Young  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  sickness  of  Hon.  Walter  Forward. 

On  the  1st  of  November,  1812,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Young  to  perform 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  abseuce  of  Hou.  Walter  Forwaid  from  the 
city  of  V\' ashington. 

On  the  1st  of  March,  1843,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Young  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  until  a  successor  to  Mr.  Forwjird  should  be  appointed  and  enter  upou 
the  discharge  of  his  duties. 

On  the  7th  of  June,  1842,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Y'oung  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  alter  the  oth  instant." 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  579 

On  the  Otli  of  May,  18411,  President  Tyler  appointed  TTujrh  S.  Lejrar^  to  act  as  Seeretary 
orStati'  until  a  successor  to  Mr.  Webster,  late  Secretary  of  State,  should  be  appointed,  quali- 
fied, and  enter  on  the  discliaro-e  of  the  duties. 

On  the  ■'^th  of  June,  ]84:i,  Presidi'ut  Tyler  appointed  William  S.  Derrick  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  State  durinjj  the  absence  of  Mr.  Jjoijare,  actinnc  Secretary. 

On  the  "^Ith  of  June,  184:5,  President  Tyler  appointed  Abel  P.  Upshur  Secretary  of  State 
ad  interim  until  a  succecsor  should  be  appointed. 

On  the  31st  of  May,  184'.?,  President  Tyler  appointed  Samuel  Hume  Porter  Acting  Secre- 
tary of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  17th  of  August,  184;?,  President  Tyler  appointed  William  S.  Derrick  Acting  Secre- 
tary of  State  during  the  absence  of  A.  P.  ITpshur  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  '28th  of  August,  184:5,  President  Tyler  (.John  0.  S|)encer,  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, "intending  to  be  absent  from  the  seat  of  government  on  and  after  the  "iDth  instant  for 
two  weeks")  appointed  McCliutock  Young  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "during 
such  period,  should  the  Secretary  be  so  long  absent." 

On  the  '29th  of  February,  1844,  President* Tyler  appointed  John  Nelson,  Attorney  Gene- 
ral, Secretary  of  State  ad  interim  until  a  successor  to  Mr.  Upshur  should  be  appointed. 

On  the  2d  of  May,  1844,  President  Tyler  appointed  McClintock  Young  to  ptnform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  until  a  successor  to  J.  C.  Spencer  thould  be  appointed 
and  qnalificd.  . 

On  the  "i.^th  of  September,  1844,  President  Tyler  appointed  Richard  K.  Cralle  Acting  Sec- 
retary of  State  during  the  absence  of  John  C.  Calhoun  from  the  seat  of  government. 

Ou  the  2d  of  April,  1845,  President  Polk  appointed  John  Y'.  Mason,  Attorney  General,  to 
he  Secretary  of  State  ad  inttrim  during  the  temporary  absence  of  James  Buchanan,  Secre- 
tary of  that  Department,  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  4th  of  August,  1845,  President  Polk  appointed  John  Y.  Mason,  Attorney  General, 
to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Mr.  iJuchanan  from  the 
seat  of  government. 

On  the  31st  of  March,  1846,  President  Polk  appointed  Nicholas  P.  Trist  to  be  Acting 
Secretary  of  State  duiing  the  absence  of  Mr.  Buchanan  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  2d  of  September,  1846,  President  Polk  appointed  Nicholas  P.  Trist  to  be  Acting 
Secretary  of  State    during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Buchanan  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  7th  of  October,  1846,  President  Polk  appointed  ^IcClintock  Y'oung  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  from  the  ciiy  of  Robert  J.  Walker, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

On  the  4th  of  March,  1847,  President  Polk  appointed  Nicholas  P.  Trist  Acting  Secretary 
of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Buchanan  from  the  seat  of  government. 

Ou  the  :ilst  of  March,  1847,  President  Polk  appointed  Nicholas  P.  Trist  Acting  Secretary 
of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Buchanan  from  the  seat  of  guvernment. 

On  the  4th  of  xVugust,  1847,  President  Polk  appointed  William  S.  Derrick  to  be  Acting 
Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Buclianan  from  the  seat  of  government 

On  the  22d  of  June,  1847,  President  Polk  appointed  John  Y.  Mason,  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  BLiclianan,  "to  take  effect 
the  •28th  instant." 

On  the2Istof  July,  1847,  President  Polk  appointed  McClintock  Y'oung  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  from  the  seat  of  government  of  Robert 
J.  Walker,  "he  intending  to  be  absent  after  the  '22d  instant." 

On  the  15th  of  October,  1847,  President  Polk  ap[)ointed  McClintock  Y'oung  to  perform  the 
duties  appertaining  to  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Robert 
J.  Walker. 

On  the  9th  of  December,  1847,  President  Polk  appointed  McClintock  Y'oung  to  perform 
the  duties  appertaining  to  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  sickness  of 
Robert  J.  Walker. 

On  the  lUth  of  April,  1848,  President  Polk  appointed  John  Appleton,  chief  clerk  of  the 
State  Department,  to  be  acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  from 
the  seat  of  government. 

Ou  tlu!  2t)th  of  May,  1848,  President  Polk  appointed  Archibald  Campbell,  chief  clerk  of 
the  War  Department,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the 
Secretary  ftom  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  17th  of  August,  1848,  President  Polk  appointed  McClintock  Young  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Secretary  Walker  from  the  seat  of 
government. 

On  the  2d  of  September,  1848,  President  Polk  appointed  Isaac  Toucey,  Attorney  General, 
to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  duiiug  the  temporar}'  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  2d  of  September,  1848,  President  Polk  appointed  John  Y.  Mason,  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  during  the  temporaiy  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

Ou  the  •2Uth  of  November,  1848,  President  Polk  appointed  Isaac  Toucey,  acting  Secretary 
of  State  during  the  temporary'  ab;:ence  of  Mr.  Buchanan  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  6th  of  March,  1849,  President  Taylor  appointed  McClintock  Y'oung  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary of  the  Trcasiuy  until  a  succ(?s3or  to  Mr.  Walker  should  Ite  duly  appoint.-d. 


580  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

On  the  8th  of  March,  1849,  Prcsitleut  Taylor  appointed  Reverdy  Johnson  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary  from  the  seat 
of  government. 

On  the  Jst  of  October,  1849,  President  Taylor  appointed  William  S.  Derrick,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  in  tiie  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  8th  of  October,  1849,  President  Taylor  ajipointcd  John  D.  McPhersun  Acting  Sec- 
retary of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Mr.  Crawford  "for  the  ensuing  ten  days." 

On  the  20th  June,  1850,  President  Taylor  appointed  John  McGinnis,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Treasury  Department,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  the  [secre- 
tary from  Washington. 

On  the  2;5d  of  July,  IS.'jO,  President  Fillmore  appointed  Major  General  Winfield  Scott 
Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  during  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resignation  of  George 
W.  Crawford. 

On  the  4th  of  October,  1850,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  S.  Denick,  chief  clerk 
of  the  State  Department,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  temporary  absence  of 
Mr.  Webster  from  the  seat  of  government.        * 

On  the  2'M  of  December,  1850,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  S.  Derrick,  chief 
clerk  of  the  State  Department,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  temj)orary 
absence  of  Mr.  Webster  from  the  seat  of  government 

On  the  1st  of  March,  18.51,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  be  Acting 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  <id  interim  during  the  illness  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  31st  of  March,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  S.  Derrick,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Webster. 

On  the  lOthof  Ma3%  1851,  President  Fillmore  a]ipointed  William  S.  Derrick,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Department  of  State,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  ot  State  dirring  the  absence  of  Mr.  Webster. 

On  the  IMth  of  Mat,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  C.  M.  Conrad,  Secretary  of  War, 
to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Navy  ad  interim  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  Itithof  June,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge,  Assistant  Sec- 
i"etary,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  2<)th  of  June,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  S.  Derrick,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  temporary  absence  of 
Mr.  Webster. 

On  the  1 1th  of  July,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  Charles  M.  Conrad,  Secretary  of 
War,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during  the  temj  orary  absence  of  Mr.  Graham  from  the 
seat  of  Government. 

On  the  14th  of  July,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  S.  Derrick,  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Webster. 

On  the  4th  of  August,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  W.  A.  Graham,  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Mr.  Conrad. 

On  the  4th  of  August,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  3d  of  August,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  W.  A.  Graham,  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  to  be  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Interior  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  A.  H.  H.  Stuart 
from  the  city. 

On  the  13th  of  September,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  A.  Graham,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Navy,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  during  the  absence  of  that  Secretary. 

On  the  13th  of  September,  1851,  President  Fillmore  ajipointed  William  L.  Hodge  Acting 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  'i2d  of  September,  lfc51.  President  Fillmore  appointed  Major  General  Winfield 
Scott  Acting  Secretary  of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  '-^5th  of  September,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  John  J.  Crittenden,  Attor- 
ney General,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  until  the  return  to  the  seat  of  goveru- 
nient  of  Daniel  Webster,  Secretary  of  State. 

On  the  2i)\\\  of  November,  1851,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  until  the  return  of  Secretary  Corwin. 

On  the  20th  of  February,  1852,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  S.  Derrick,  chief 
clerk  of  the  Department  of  State,  Acting  Secretary  of  State  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Webster. 

On  the  21st  of  February,  1852,  President  Fillmore  ai>|)oiuted  William  L.  Hodge  to  be 
Acting  Secretary  of  the  Tnuvsuryiu  the  abf-ence  of  Secretary  Corwin. 

On  the  1st  of  March,  18.52,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  Acting  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  in  the  absence  of  Secrelary  Corw'in. 

On  the  19th  of  March,  1852,  President  FiUmore  appointed  William  Hunter  Acting  Secre- 
tary of  State  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Welisler. 

On  the2()tii  of  April,  18.52,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  Acting  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  during  the  iudispositicu  (if  Secretary  Corwin. 

On  the  2d  of  November,  l.<>0,  President  I'illtiKire  appointed  Charles  M.  Conrad,  Secre- 
tary of  War,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  Nitvy  during  the  abs(>nce  of  tluit  Secretary. 

On  the  1st  of  May,  1852,  President  Fillmore  appdiuted  William  Hunter  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  State  in  the  absence' of  Mr.  Webster. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  581 

On  the  10th  of  May,  18:V2,  Presiilcnt  Fillmore  appointcil  William  A.  Giiiluim,  Secretary 
of  till'.  Navy,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  in  tiie  absence  of  Mr.  Cunratl. 

On  the  2-lth  of  May,  \Sb2,  Prosiilent  Fillmore  apjiointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  in  the  absence  of  Secretary  Corwin. 

On  the  lUth  of  June,  IHVJ,  I'resident  Fillmore  ajipointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  the  absenci'  of  Secretary  L'or\vin. 

On  the  tith  of  July,  I8j2,  Piesident  Fillmore  appointed  William  Hunter,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Department  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Webster. 

On  the  ll'th  of  Angust,  1852,  President  Fillmore  appointed  John  P.  Kennedy  Acting  Sec- 
retary of  War  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Conrad. 

Ou  the  27th  of  August,  J 852,  President  l<"illmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  Acting 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  the  absence  of  Secretary  Corwin. 

On  the  2d  of  September,  18.'i2,  President  Fillmore  appointed  Charles  M.  Conrad,  Secretary 
of  War,  to  be  Acting  Secretaiy  of  State  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Webster. 

Ou  the  4th  of  October,  1852,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  be  Acting 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Secretary  Corwin  being  unable  by  sickness  to  perform  the 
duties  of  the  office. 

Ou  the  28th  of  October,  1852,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  Acting 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  the  absence  of  Mr   Corwin. 

On  the  31st  of  December,  1852,  President  Fillmore  a])pointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  sickness  of  Mr.  Corwin. 

On  the  15th  of  January,  1853,  President  Fillmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  sickness  of  Mr.  Corwin. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  1853,  President  P^illmore  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Corwin. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  now  offer  documents  from  the  Department  of  the  Postmaster 
General.  They  are  all  in  one  envelope,  (sending  some  papers  in  an  envelope 
to  the  managers.) 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  state  the  nature  of  the  documents. 

Mr.  Curtis.  They  are  documents  which  show  the  removals  of  postmasters 
during  the  session  of  the  Senate  and  ad  interim  appointments  to  fill  the  places. 
I  believe  they  are  all  of  that  character,  thoitgh  I  am  not  quite  sure.  Some  of 
them  1  know  are. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  They  are  exactly  of  the  same  kind  that  the  Senate 
has  just  admitted. 

Mr.  Curtis.   I  should  like  to  have  those  read.     They  are  short. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  documents. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

I  hereby  appoint  St.  John  B.  L.  Skinner  to  be  Acting  First  Assistant  Postmaster  General 
ad,  interim  in  place  of  Horatio  King,  now  Acting  Postmaster  General  under  the  law. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN. 
Washington,  February  8,  1861. 


Post  Office  Dep.\rtment, 

IVushington,  D.  C,  April  7,  1863. 
I,  Alexander  W.  Randall,  Postmaster  General  of  the  United  States  of  America,    certify 
that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original  order  ou  tile  in  this  department,  together 
with  extracts  from  the  records  in  said  case. 
In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Post  Office 
[L.  .s.]     Departmeut  to  be  affi.xed  at  the  General  Post  Office  in  the  city  of  Washington  the 
day  and  year  above  written. 

ALEX.  W.  RANDALL, 

Postinustcr  General. 


New  Orleans  Post  Office, 
Orleans  Parish,  Luuisiana,  June  2'J,  1860. 
Samuel  F.  M.arks,  Postmaster.    Let  this  office  be  pla^^ed  temporarily  in  the  hands  of  a 
special   agent  of  the  department,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Postmaster  General,  in  place  ot 
Samuel  F.  Marks,  removed. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN. 
Hon.  Joseph  Holt,  Postmaster  General. 


582  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Ji:xE2a,  ISfiO. 
Instructions  sent  to  D.  P.  Blair,  special  agent,  to  take  possession  of  the  office  and  remove 
Deutzel,  chief  clerk. 

D.  P.  Blair  held  the  office  from  9th  July  to  September  4,  I860. 

Drfalcatiun  of  the  lute  postmaster  of  IVcic  York  city. 

[Ex.  Doc.  No.  91,  3(itli  Congress,  first  session.  House  of  Representatives.] 
Letter  of  Postmaster  General  Holt,  transmitting  report  iu  reply  to  resolution  of  the  House 
of  the  5th  of  June,  18C0. 

Order  of  the  President, 

Washington,  Mmj  10,  1860. 
Xew  York  post  office.  New  York  county,  New  York  State — Isaac  V.  Fowler,  postmaster ; 
$75,0U0  bond. 

Let  this  office  be  placed  temporarily  in  the  hands  of  a  special  agent  of  the  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment, to  be  appointed  by  the  Postmaster  General,  in  place  of  Isaac  V.  Fowler,  removed. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN. 
Hon.  Joseph  Holt,  Postmaster  General. 
H.  St.  George  Oefutt,  Special  Agent. 
(See  printed  report  for  further  proceedings.) 

January  21,  1861. 

Milwaukee  post  office,  Wisconsin,  Milwaukee  county — Mitchell  Steever.  postmaster,  (failed 
to  pay  draft  ) 

Let  this  office  be  placed  temporarily  in  the  hands  of  a  special  agent  of  the  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment, to  be  appointed  by  the  Post  Office  Department. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN. 

January  25,  1861. 
D.  M.  Bull,  special  ageut,  took  charge  6th  Febraaiy,  1861,  and  subsequently  handed  over 
the  same  to  W.  A.  Bryant,  special  ageut,  who  remained  in  charge  up  to  3Jst  March,  1861. 

I  hereby  appoint  St.  John  B.  L.  Skinner,  now  Acting  First  Assistant  Postmaster  General, 
to  be  Acting  Postmaster  General  ad  interiin  iu  place  of  Hon.  Montgomery  Blair,  now  tempo- 
rarily absent. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

Washington,  Si ptcmber  22,  1862. 

[Each  of  these  documents  is  attested  by  Postmaster  General  Randall  accord- 
ing to  the  form  before  given.] 

Mr.  Ci'RTis.  1  now  offtu- in  evid  nee,  reading  from  the  published  E.x;ccutive 
Documents  of  the  Senate,  volume  four,  second  session  thirty-sixth  Congress, 
page  one,  a  message  of  President  Buchanan  to  the  Senate  in  respect  to  the 
office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  had 
filled  that  office  in  place  of  Mr.  Floyd,  and  accompanying  that  message  is  a  list 
of  the  names  of  those  persons,  as  shown  by  the  records  of  the  Department  of 
State,  who  had  discharged  the  duties  of  officers  of  the  cabinet  by  appointment 
made  in  the  recess,  and  those  conffrmed  by  the  Senate,  as  well  as  those  acting 
ad  interim,  or  simply  acting.  This  list  is  printed  as  an  appendix  to  the  message, 
and  was  sent  into  the  Senate.     I  wish  that  message  to  be  read. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  difficulty  that  I  find  with  this  message,  scniators, 
is,  that  it  is  the  message  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  and  cannot  be  put  in  evidence  any 
more  than  the  declaration  of  anybody  else.  We  should  like  to  have  ^Ir. 
Buchanan  brought  here  under  oatli,  and  to  cross-examine  him  as  to  this.  There 
area  great  many  questions  I  should  like  to  ask  him  about  his  state  of  mind  at 
this  time  ;  whetlier  he  had  that  clearness  of  perception  just  then  of  his  duties 
Avhich  would  make  his  messages  evidence.  But  there  is  a  still  further  objection, 
and  that  is,  that  most  of  the  message  is  composed  of  the  statements  of  Mr.  "  J. 
S.  Black" — Jeremiah  S.  Black — who  refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  this 
case  anyhow.     [Laughter.]     And  I  do  not  think  that  the   statements  of  those 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDKNT.  583 

gentlemen,  however  respectable,  are  to  be  taken  here  as  evidence.  Tliey  may 
be  retevred  to  as  public  documents,  perhaps,  but  I  do  not  think  they  can 
be  put  in  as  evidence.  How  do  we  know  how  correctly  Mr.  Black  made  up  this 
list  or  his  clerks  ?  Are  you  going  to  put  in  his  statements  of  what  was  done, 
and  put  it  upon  us  or  yourselves  to  examine  to  see  whether  they  are  not  all  IHu- 
sory  and  calculated  to  mislead  1     I  do  not  care  to  argue  it  any  further. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  is  it  offered  for  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  only  wish  the  Senate  to  understand  the  purpose  with  which 
we  offer  this,  and  that  will  be,  as  1  view  it,  argument  enougli.  We  off'n-  it  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  (he  practice  of  the  government.  This  is  an  act  done 
by  the  head  of  the  government  in  connection  with  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.     We  offer  to  show  that  act  as  a  part  of  the  practice  of  the  government. 

j\Ir.  Manager  Butlke.  The  practice  of  the  government !  I  object,  once  for  all, 
to  the  practice  of  this  government  being  shown  by  the  acts  of  James  Buchanan 
and  Jeremiah  S.  Black.     If  you  choose  to  take  it,  I  have  no  objection. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the 
Senate.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  evidence  just  offered 
shall  be  received  will  please  say  aye ;  those  of  the  contrary  opinion,  no.  [Put- 
ting the  question.]  The  ayes  appear  to  have  it — the  ayes  have  it.  The  evi- 
dence is  admitted. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  message  is  short,  and  I  desire  it  to  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE    TRESIDENT  OF  THE   UNITED   STATES  IN  ANSWER   TO  A  RESOLUTION 
OF  THE  SENATE  RESPECTING  THE  VACANCY  IN   THE  OFFICE   OF  SECRETARY  OF  WAR, 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

In  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  Senate,  pas,sed  on  the  10th  instant,  requesting  me 
to  inform  that  body,  if  not  incompatible  with  the  public  interest,  "  wiietber  John  B.  Floyd, 
whose  appointment  as  Secretary  of  War  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate  on  the  6th  of  March, 
1857,  s'ill  continues  to  liold  said  office,  and  if  not,  when  and  liow  said  office  liecame  vacant; 
and  farther  to  inform  the  Senate  how  and  by  whom  the  duties  of  said  ofifice  are  now  dis- 
charged ;  and  if  an  appointment  of  an  acting  or  provisional  Secretary  of  War  has  been  made, 
how,  when,  and  by  what  authority  it  was  so  made,  and  why  the  fact  of  said  appointment  has 
not  been  communicated  to  the  Senate,"  I  hav3  to  inform  the  Senate  that  John  B.  Floyd,  the 
late  Secretary  of  tlie  War  Department,  resigned  that  office  on  the  29th  day  of  December  last, 
and  that  on  the  1st  day  of  January  instant  Joseph  Holt  was  authorized  by  me  to  perform  the 
duties  of  the  said  office  until  a  successor  should  be  appointed  or  the  vacancy  filled.  Under 
this  authority  the  duties  of  the  War  Department  have  been  performed  by  Mr.  Holt  from  the 
day  last  mentioned  to  the  present  time. 

The  power  to  carry  on  the  business  of  the  government  by  means  of  a  provisional  appointment 
when  a  vacancy  occurs  is  expressly  given  by  the  act  of  February  13,  179.5,  which  enacts  "that 
in  case  of  vacancy  in  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Department  of  War,  or  any  officer  of  either  of  the  said  departments,  whose  appoint- 
ment is  not  in  the  head  thereof,  whereby  they  cannot  perform  the  duties  of  their  said  respective 
offices,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  case  he  shall  think  it 
necessary,  to  authorize  any  person  or  persons,  at  his  discretion,  to  perform  the  duties  of  the 
said  respective  offices  until  a  successor  be  appointed  or  such  vacancy  filled :  Provided, 
That  no  vacancy  shall  be  supplied,  in  manner  aforesaid,  for  a  longer  period  than  six 
months." 

It  is  manifest  tliat  if  the  power  which  this  law  gives  had  been  withheld  the  public  interest 
would  frequently  suffer  very  serious  detriment.  Vacancies  may  occur  at  any  time  in  the 
most  important  offices  which  cannot  be  immediately  and  permanently  filled  in  a  manner 
satisfactory  to  the  appointing  power.  It  was  wise  to  make  a  provision  which  would  enable 
the  President  to  avoid  a  total  suspension  of  business  in  the  interval,  and  ecpially  wise  so  to 
limit  the  executive  discretion  as  to  prevent  any  serious  abuse  of  it.  This  is  what  the  framers 
of  the  act  of  1795  did,  and  neither  the  policy  nor  the  constitutional  validity  of  their  law  has 
been  questioned  for  sixty-five  years. 

The  practice  of  making  such  apjioiutments,  whether  in  a  vacation  or  during  tiie  session  of 
Congress,  has  been  constantly  followed  dnring  every  admiiustration  from  the  earliest  period 
of  the  government,  and  its  perfect  lawfulness  has  never,  to  my  knowUMl<,fe,  been  questioned 
or  denied.  Without  going  back  further  than  the  year  1829,  and  without  taking  into  the  cal- 
culation any  but  the  chief  officers  of  the  several  departments,  it  will  be  found  that  provisional 


584  IMPEACHM2NT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

appointments  to  fill  vacancies  were  made  to  the  number  of  one  Imudred  and  seventy-nine, 
from  the  commeuceuieut  of  General  Jackson's  administration  to  tlie  close  of  General  Pierce's. 
I'his  number  would  probably  be  preatl}'  increased  if  all  the  cases  which  occurred  iu  tlie  sub- 
ordinate offices  and  bureaus  were  added  to  the  count.  Some  of  tliem  were  made  while  the 
Si-nate  was  in  session;  some  which  were  made  in  vacation  were  continued  in  force  lon^  after 
the  Senate  assembled.  Sometimes  tiie  temporary  officer  was  the  conunissioned  head  of  another 
department,  sometimes  a  subordinate  in  the  same  department.  Somi^times  the  atfairs  of  the 
Navy  Department  have  been  directed  ad  interim  by  a  commodore,  and  those  of  the  War  De- 
partment by  a  f^eneral.  In  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  cases  which  occurred  previous  to  b''5"2  it 
is  believed  that  the  compensation  provided  by  law  for  the  officer  regularly  commissioned  was 
paid  to  the  person  who  discharg^ed  the  duties  ad  interim.  To  pjive  the  Senate  a  more  detailed  and 
satisfactory  view  of  the  subject  I  send  the  accompanying  tabular  statement,  certified  by  tlie 
Secretary  of  State,  in  which  the  instances  are  all  set  forth  in  which  provisional,  as  well  as 
permanent,  appointments  were  made  to  the  highest  executive  offices  from  Jd2'J  nearly  to  the 
present  time,  with  their  respective  dates. 

It  must  be  allowed  that  these  precedents,  so  numerous  and  so  long  continued,  are  entitled 
to  great  respect,  since  we  can  scarcely  suppose  tliat  the  wise  and  eminent  nieu  by  whom  they 
were  made  could  have  been  mistaken  on  a  point  which  was  brought  to  their  attention  so  often 
Still  less  can  it  be  supposed  that  any  of  them  wilftilly  violated  the  law  or  the  Constitution. 

The  lawfulness  of  the  practice  rests  upon  the  exigencies  of  the  public  service,  which  require 
that  the  movements  of  the  government  shall  not  be  arrested  by  an  accidental  vacancy  iu  one 
of  tie  departments ;  upon  an  act  of  Congress  expressly  and  plainly  giving  and  regulating 
the  power;  and  upon  long  and  uninterrupted  usage  of  the  Executive,  which  has  never  been 
challenged  as  illegal  by  Congress. 

This  answers  the  inquiry  of  the  Senate  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  show  "how  and  by 
whom  the  duties  of  said  office  are  now  discharged."  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  explain  further 
than  I  have  done  '•how,  when,  and  by  what  authority"  the  provisional  appointment  has 
been  made.  But  the  resolution  makes  the  additional  inquiry  "why  the  fact  of  said  appoiut- 
ujent  has  not  been  communicated  to  the  Senate." 

I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  Senate  did  not  mean  to  call  for  the  reasons  upon  which  I  acted 
in  performing  an  executive  duty,  nor  to  demand  an  account  of  the  motives  which  governed 
me  in  an  act' which  the  Jaw  and  the  Constitution  left  to  my  own  discretion.  It  is  sufficient, 
therefore,  for  that  part  of  the  resolution  to  say  that  a  provisional  or  temporary  appointment 
like  that  iu  question  is  not  required  by  law  to  be  communicated  to  the  Senate,  and  that  there 
is  no  instance  on  record  where  such  communication  ever  has  been  made. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN. 

Washington,  January  15,  1801. 

UNlTb;D  STATE.S  OF  AlMEllICA,  Deparlment  of  Stale  : 
To  all  to  tvhom  these  presents  shall,  come,  greeting  : 

I  certify  that  the  document  hereunto  annexed  contains  a  correct  list,  duly  examined  and 
compared  with  the  record  in  this  department,  of  those  persons  who  have  been  conunissioned 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States  as  heads  of  departments,  during  the  recess  of  the 
Senate,  as  confirmed  by  that  body,  as  acting  ad  interim,  or  merely  acting  from  March  4,  Iri^'J, 
to  December  20,  1860,  both  inclusive. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I,  J.  S.  Black,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  have 
liereunto  subscribed  my  naule  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  15th  day  of  January',  A.  D.  18G1,  and  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States  of  America  the  eighty-fifth. 

[SEAL.]  J. S.  BLACK. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


585 


A  list  of  the  names  of  those  persons,  as  shown  hij  the  records  of  the  Department 
of  State,  who  discharged  the  duties  of  officers  of  the  cabinet,  uJtethcr  by 
ajjpointment  made  in  recess  and  those  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  as  well  as  those 
acting  ad  interim  or  simjjfi/  acting. 


Date  of 
appoiutinent. 


Charactar  of 
uppoiutuieut. 


Under  President  Jackaon. 


James  A.  Hamilton 

Martin  Van  Biiren 

Samuel  U.  lugUam 

John  Macphersou  Berrien, 

John  13i'anch 

AVilliam  T.  Barry 

John  H.  Eaton 

Asbury  Dickius 

"William  B.  Lewift 

Eichaid  H.  Bradford 

AVilliam  B.  Lewis 

J.  G.  Kandolph 

I'hilip  Ct.  Randolph 

J.  ti.  Randolph 

John  Boyle 

John  Boyle 

Kdvvard  Livingston 

Levi  Woodbury 

John  Bo  vie 

Philip  G-"  Randolph 

A-^bury  Dickiud 

Koger  B.  Taney 

Lewis  Cass 

Roger  B.  Taney 

Louis  McLane 

John  Boyle 

Daniel  Brent  

Roger  B.  Taney 

Louis  McLane 

Asbury  Dickins 

Levi  Woodbury 

Asbury  Dickins 

John  Robb 

John  Robb 

Daniel  Brent 

John  Boyle    

Asbury  Dickins 

Asbury  Dickins 

John  Robb  

John  Boyle 

John  Robb 

Asbury  Dickins 

Louis  McLane , 

Asbury  Dickins 

Louis  McLane 

"William  J.  Duane 

Daniel  Brent 

John  Robb 

John  Boyle 

Daniel  Brent 

Asbury  Dickins 

Roger  B.  Taney 

John  Robb 

Peter  V.  Daniel 

Asbury  Dickins 

Benjamin  F.  Butler 

McClintock  Young 

John  Forsyth 

I>evi  Woodbury 

Mahlon  Dickerson. 

John  Boyle 

Asbury  Dickins 

Benjamin  F.  Butler 

John  Forsyth 

Mahlou  Dickerson 

Mahlon  Dickerson 

Asbury  Dickins 

Mulilon  Dickt-rson 

Ami  IS  Kendall 

Asbuiy  Dickins 

John  Boyle 

Carey  C.  Harris 


Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  . 

Attorney  General' 

Secretary  of  the  Navy  . . . . 

Postmaster  General 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  AVar 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  War  

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Si'cretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Si'cretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury . 

Attorney  General 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War .'. 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury . 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretar3^  of  State 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Attorney  Gi-neral  

Secretary  of  State 

Attorney  General 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  War 

Postmaster  General 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  War 


March  4,  1P-3S) 

March  fi,  \&J 

March  6,  1829 

March  9,  1829 

March  9,  1829 

March  9,  1829 

March  9,  1829 

April  24,  1829 

July  7,  1829 

July  8,  1829 

August  19,  182.0.... 
November  7,  1829.. 

June  12,  1830 

March  8,  1831 

March  19,  1831 

May  12,  1831 

May  24,  1831 

May  23,  1831 

June  16,  1831 

June  18,  1831 

June  21,  1831 

July  20,  1831 

August  1,  1831 

Julv  20,  1831 

Augusts,  1831 

August  10,  1831 

August  10,  1831 

September  12, 1831. 
September  13.1831. 
October  18.  1831... 
October  18,  1831  ... 

March  17,  1832 

June  8,  1832 

July  16,  1832 

July  21,  1832 

July  23,  1832 

July  18,  1832 

Novembers,  1832 
November  12,  1832. 

March  28,  1833 

May  6,  1833 

May  6,  1833 

May  13,  1833 

May  29,  1833 

May  29,  1833 

May  29,  1833 

June  5,  1833 

June  6,  1833 

June  5,  18.33 

June  13,  1833 

August  10,  18.33 

September  23,  18.33. 
September  28,  1833. 
October  22,  1833... 
November  11,  1833. 
November  15,  1833. 

June  25,  18.34.' 

June  27,  1834 

June  27,  1834 

June  30,  1834 

July  5,  1834  ........ 

July  8,  1834 

No  date 

No  date 

No  date 

October  8,  18.34.... 
October  11,  1834... 
January  19,  1835... 

Mayl,  1835 

Ma/2,  1835 

May  7, 18.35 

May  18,  1835.   


Actirg. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

R^g^^la^. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Ad  interim. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Ad  interim. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Actnig. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 


586 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

List  of  names — Continued. 


Anbury  Dickins .Secretary  of  State 

JlcCliiitoek  Yuung Siciftary  of  the  Treasury 

Aslniry  Dickius Secretary  of  State 

Asbiiry  Dickins 

McCliutni'k  Young 

Carey  C.  Harris 


Carey  C-  Harris 
Asbury  Dickius 
Carey  C.  Harris 
Asbury  Dickius 

John  Koyle 

C.  A.  Harris 

C.  A.  Harris 

B.  F.  Butler 

B.  F.  Butler 


Under  President  Van  Biiren. 


Joel  R.  Poinset Secretary  of  War. 

A.  O.  Dayton Secretary  of  State 


Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  War , 

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War , 

Secretary  of  War 


McCliutock  Young 

John  Boyle 

James  K.  Paulding  . 

Felix  Grundy 

John  Boyle 

SlcCliutock  Young  . 

Aaron  Vail 

MeClincock  Young  . 

Aaron  Vail 

McClmtock  Young  . 
Henry  D.  Gilpin  ... 

John  M.  Niles 

J.  L.  Martin 

J.  L.  Martin , 

McClintock  Young  . 
J.  L.  Martin 


Under  Presidents  Harrison  and  Tyler. 


Thomas  Ewing 

Daniel  Webster 

John  Bell 

George  E.  Badger 

John  J.  Crittenden 

Francis  Granger 

John  D.  Simms 

Daniel  Fletcher  Webster. 

McCliutock  Young 

Walter  Forward 

A.  P.  TIpshur 

Charles  A.  Wicklirte 

Hu^'h  S.  Legare 

John  McLean 

John  C.  Spencer 

William  S.  Derrick 

McCliutock  Young 

McCliutock  Young 

McCliutock  Young 

McClintock  Young 

McClintock  Young 

McCliutock  Young 

John  C.  Spencer 

James  Madison  Porter 

McClintock  Young 

Hugh  S.  Legare 

AVilliam  S.  Derrick 

Abel  P   Upshur 

.Samuel  Hume  Porter 

AV'illiam  .S.  lierrick 

John  Nelson 

A.  P.  Up>hur 

l)avid  Heiishaw 

McCliutock  Young 

John  Nelson 

Tiiomas  W.  Gilmer 

William  Wilkins 

John  Y.  Mason    

J<ilui  0.  Calhoun 

McCliutock  Young 

George  M.  Bibb 


.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

.Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Attorney  General  

.Secretary  of  the  Navy 

.Secretary  of  the  Treasury  . 

Secretary  of  .State 

.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  .State 

.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Attorney  General 

Postmaster  General 

.Secretary  of  Sate 

.Secretary  of  .State 

.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  State 


Date  of 
appointment. 


.Secretary  of  the  Treasury . 

S.'cretary  of  .St.ate 

.Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Attorney  General 

Post mastei'  General 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secri'tary  of  the  Navy 

Postmaster  General 

Attorney  General 

Secretary  of  War 

.Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  .State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
.Sc'cretary  of  the  Treasury. 
.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

.Secretary  of  War 

.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

.Secretary  of  .Stato 

Secretary  of  .State 

.Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  State 

Attorney  General 

.Secretary  of  State 

.Secretary  of  the  Navy 

.Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State 

Si-cretary  of  the  Navy 

.Secretary  of  War 

•SecrcUary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  thy  Treasury. 


July  6, 1?35 

Juiy  1,  18:35 

August  ;n,  3835.... 
September  28,  1835. 
October -JO,  1835.... 
October  23, 1835.... 

April  29,  1836 

Mav  10,  1836 

May  27,  1836 

July  7,1836 

July  9,  1836 

Julv  18,  18.J6 

Sep'tember8,  1836.. 

October  25,  1836 

March  3, 1637 

March  7,1837 

Juue28,  1837 

October  20,  1837.... 

October  23, 18.37 

June  25,  1838 

July  5, 1838 

July  21.  1838 

July  10,  1838 

July  21,  1838 

April  24,  1839 

June  8,  1839 

June  1.5,  1839 

January  11,  1840... 

May  19,  1840 

August  26.  1840.... 
October  i6,  1840... 

March  2.  1841 

March  2, 1841...... 

March  5,  1841 

March  5,  1841 

March  5,  1841 

March  5,  1841 

Slarch  5,  1841 

March  6,  1841 

March  9,  1841 

April  27,  1841 

September  13,1811 
September  13,  1841. 
.September  13,1841. 
September  13,1841. 
September  13,  1841. 
September  13,  1841. 

October  12, 1841 

October  20,  1841 

October  3ii,  1841 

May  14,1812 

June  30,1842 

Julv  20,  1842 

Noveiuber  1,1842.. 

March  1,1843 

March  3,1843 

March  8,1843 

Junes,  1843 

May  9,1843 

June8,  1843 

June  24,  1843 

May  31,  1843 

August  17,  1843 

July  1,  1843 

Julv  24, 1843 

July  24,  1843 

August  28,  1843 

February  29,  1844.. 
February  1.5,  1844.. 
February  1.5,  1844.. 

March  14,  1844 

March  6.  1844 

May  2,  1844 

Juue  15,  1844 


Character  of 
appointment. 


Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim 

Regular. 


Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Aetiug. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Acting. 


Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Reguhtr. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

•■Vctiug. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Ad  interim. 

Regular. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT 

List  of  ncnnes — Continued. 


587 


Under  President  Polk. 


Jiinies  Buchanan 

Kobort  J.  Walker 

AVilliara  L.  Marcy 

Cave  Johnson 

John  Y.  Jlason 

George  I5ancroi't 

John  Y.  Mason 

John  Y.  Mason 

N.  P.  Trist 

N.  P.  Trist 

John  Y.  Mason 

]\tcClintock  Young 

Nathan  Clifford 

N.  P.  Trist 

N.  P.  Trist 

John  Y.  Mason 

BIcCliutock  Young 

■\Vilham  S.  Derrick 

JleClintocIc  Young 

McClintoclv  Young 

John  Appletou 

Archibald  Campbell,  jr. 

Isaac  Toucey 

Isaac  Toucey 

John  Y.  Mason 

Liaac  Toucey    


Under  Presidents  Taylor  and  Fillmore. 


McClintock  Young 

John  M.  Clayton 

William  M.  Meredith 

George  W.  Crawford 

AVilliam  B.  Preston 

James  CoUamer 

Reverdy  Johnson 

Thomas  Evving 

Reverdy  Johnson 

William  S.  Dei  rick 

John  D.  McPherson 

John  McGinnis 

Winfield  Scott 

Nathan  P.  Hall 

Thomas  Corwin 

Daniel  Webster 

W.  A.  Graham 

John  J.  Crittenden 

Charles  M.  Con.rad 

Alexander  H.  H.  Stuart 

W.  S.  Derrick 

AUen  A.  Hal! 

W.  S.  Derrick 

W.  L.  Hodi,'e 

W.  S.  Derrick 

W^  S.  Derrick 

C.  M.  Conrad 

W.  L.  Hodge 

W.  S.  Derrick 

C.  M.  Cvnrad 

W.  S.  Derrick 

W.  A.  Graham 

W.  L.  Hodge 

W.  A.  Graham 

W.  A.  Graham 

W.  L.  Hodge 

AViutif  Id  Scott 

J.J.  Crittenden 

AV.  L.  Hodge 

W.  S.  Derrick 

^V.  L.  Hodge 

W.  L.  Hodge  

William  Hunter 

William  L.  Hodge 

C.  M.  Conrad 

William  Hunter 

C.  M.  Conrad 

William  L.  Hodge 

Willia m  L.  Hodge 

William  Hunter 


Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Postmaster  General 

Attorney  General 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Attorney  General 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  W^ar 

Attorney  General 

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  State  


Secretary  of  the  Treasury. .  March  6,  1849 

Secretary  of  State  .  _ March  7,  1849 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. .  March  8,  1849 

Secretary  of  War March  8,  1849 

Secretary  of  the  Navy March  8,  1849 

Postmaster  General March  8,  1849 

Attorney  General March  8,  1849 

Secretary  of  the  Interior March  8,  1849 

Secretarv  of  War March  8,  1849 

Secretary  of  State October  1,  1849 

Secretary  of  War October  8.  1849  . . . , 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury . .  June  20,  1850 

Secretary  of  W^ar July  23, 1850 

Postmaster  General July  2.3, 1850 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. .  July  23,  1850 

Secretary  of  State July  22,  1850 

Secretary  of  the  Navy July  22,  1850 

Attorney  General July  22,  1850 

Secretary  of  W^ar August  15,  1850 

Secretary  of  the  Interior  . . .  September  12,  1850 

Secretary  of  State October  4,  1850 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury..  October  7,  1850 

Secretary  of  State December  6,  1850.. 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury..  Blarch  11,  1851 

Secretary  of  State March  31,  1851 

Secretary  of  State May  10,  1851 

Secretary  of  the  Navy May  15,  1851 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury..  June  16,  1851 

Secretary  of  State June  20,  1851 

Secretary  of  the  Navy July  U,  1851 

Secrt- tary  of  State July  14,  1851 

Secretary  of  War August  4,  1851 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury..  August  4,  1851 

Secretary  of  the  Interior  - . .  August  4,  1851 

S<'cretary  of  War September  13,1851. 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury..  September  13,  1851. 

Secretary  of  W^ar September  22, 1851- 

Secretary  of  State September  25,  1851 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury..  November  26,  1851. 

Secretary  of  State February  2il,  1852. . 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. .  February  21,  1852. . 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury . .  March  1,  1852 

Secretary  of  State March  19,  1852 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. .  April  26,  1852 

Secretary  of  the  Navy November  2,  1850. . 

Secretary  of  State Mav  1,  1852 

Secretary  of  the  Navy '  May  19,  1852 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury..!  May  24,  1852 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury..  June  10,  1852 

Secretary  of  State I  July  6, 1852 


March  6,  1845 

March  6,  1845 

March  6,  1845 

March  6,  1845 

March  6,  1845 

March  10,  1845 

April  2,  1845 

August  4,  1845 

March  31,  1846 

September  2,  1846 
September  9,  1846  . 

October  7,  1846 

October  17,  1846... 

March  11,  1847 

March  31,  1847  ... 

June  28,  1847 

July  21,  1847 

August  4,  1847  ... 
October  15,  1847  -  . , 
December  9,  1847. 

April  10,  1848 

May  26,  1848 

June  21,  1848 

September  2,  1848 
September  2,  1848 
November  20,  1848 


Character  of 
appointment. 


Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regiili*. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Reuular. 

Acting. 

R.-giilar. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 


Ad  ivtcrim. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Ad  iiiterirtu 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regnlai-. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

.Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 


588 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

List  of  names — Contiimed. 


John  P.  Kennerly  ... 
Joliu  P.  Ki'uuedy  ... 

■\V.  L.  Hodge 

Samuel  0.  Hubbard. 

('.  M.  Conrad 

\V.  L.  Hodge 

AV.  r..  Hodge 

Kihvar<l  Everett 

W.  L.  Hodge 

W.  L.  Hodge 

AVilliaiu  Hunter 

AV.  L.  Hodge 


Under  President  Pierce. 


W.  L.  Marcy 

James  Guthrie 

Ivobert  McClelland  . . 

Jefferson  Davis 

J.  C.  Dobbin 

James  Campljell 

Caleb  Cushing 

P.  Gr.  Washington  . . . 

J.  C.  Dobbin 

A.  D.  Mann 

P.  G.  Washington 

A.  D.  Mann 

P.  G.  Washington  . .. 

William  Hunter 

Archibald  Campbell . 
P.  G.  W^ashingtou  ... 
Archibald  Campbell. 

P.  G.  Washiijgtou 

Samuel  Cooper 

William  Hunter 

P.  G.  Washiugron 

Archibald  Campbell. 
Archibald  Campbell. 
Samuel  Cooper 


Under  President  Buchanan. 


Lewis  Cass 

Howell  Cobb 

Jacob  Thompson 

John  B.  Floyd 

Isaac  Toucey 

Aaron  V.  Browu 

J.  S.  Black 

Pliilip  Clayton 

John  Appleton 

Philip  Clavtou 

Philip  Clayton 

John  Appletnu 

Joseph  ilolt 

Philip  Clayton 

William  R.  Drinkard. 

Philip  Clay tou 

Philip  Clayton 

I'hilip  Clayton 

William  H.  Trescott.. 

Philip  Clayton 

I'hilip  (Jlayton 

Pliili|)  Clayton 

Philip  Clayton 

Isaac  'I'ouccy 

Pliili))  V.  Tliomas 

W.  Hunter 

J.  S.  Black 

Edwin  M.  Stanton 


Office. 


Secretary 
Secretary 
Secretary 
Postniaste 
Secretary 
Secretary 
Secretary 
Secretary 
Secretary 
Secretary 
Secretary 
Secretary 


of  the  Navy 

of  War 

of  the  Treasury. 

r  General 

of  State 

of  the  Treasury, 
of  the  Treasury. 

of  State  

of  the  Treasury . 
of  the  Treasury. 

of  State  

of  the  Treasury. 


Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Interior.. 

Secretar.v  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Postmaster  General 

Attorney  General 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  Sta'e 

Secretarj'  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  Wat- 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  Stare 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  War 


Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Interior. . 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Postmaster  General 

Attornev  General 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State  

Postmaster  General 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  War 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury . 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State  

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Secretary  of  State 

Secretary  of  State 

Attorney  General 


Date  of 
appointment. 


July  ai,  1803 

August  19,  1852.... 

August  27,  1H52 

Augusts!,  1852... 
September,  2.  1852. 
October  4,  1852  . . . . 
October  28,  1852  . . . 
November  6,  1852.. 
December  31,  1852 
Januarv  15.  1853. . . 

March  3,  1853 

March  3,  18.")3 

March  7,  18,53 

March  7,  lP.53 

March  7,  1853 

March  7,  1853 

March  7,  le53 

March  7,  18.53 

March  7,  18.53 

July  U,  1853 

July  11,  1853 

July  29,  1853 

September  23,  1853 
September  28,  1853 

April  12,  1854 

August  21,  1854... 
August  29,  1854... 
October  5,  1854  . . . 
October  30,  1854  . . 

May  5,  1855 

May  2fi,  1855 

July  21,  1855 

August  6,  1855 

October  9,  1855  . . . 
January  19,  1857.. 
March  3,  1857 


March  6,  1857 

March  G,  1857 

March  6,  1857 

March  6,  1857 

March  (i,  1857 

March  6,  1857 

March  6,  1857 

April  23,  1857 

June  1,  1857 

June  28,  18.58 

July  13,  1858 

August  20,  1858... 

March  14,  1859 

April  26,  1859 

July  5,  1859 , 

July  20,1859 

August  30,  18.59... 

May  30,  1860 

June  26,  1860 

July  27,  1860 , 

October  6,  1860 

October  22, 1860... 
November  2t5,  1860 
December  10,  1860 
lieceiuber  12,  1860 
December  13,  18(iO 
December  13,  1860 
December  20,  1860 


Character  of 
appoiutuieut. 


Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Actiug. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Actiug. 


Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 


Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Regular. 

Actiug. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Actiug. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Actiug. 

Acting. 

Actiug. 

Acting. 

Actiug. 

Acting. 

Acting. 

Ad  interim. 

Regular. 

Acting. 

Regular. 

Regular. 


Mr.  CniM'iS.  I  now  rlesiro  to  move  for  an  order  on  tlu!  proper  olHt'cr  of  the 
Seuiilc  to  I'uriiigli,  80  that  we  may  put  into  tlio  ca80,  a  statement  of  the  ilatos  of 
the  b(;ginning  and  end  of  each  8es8ion  of  the  Stuiate,  indudino;,  of  course,  its 
executive  ses.sions  aa  well  a.s  its  lej^islative,  from  tlie  orij^in  of  the  government 
down  to  the  present  time.     That  will  enable  us,  by  comparing  those  dates  with 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  589 

these  facts  wliich  we  put  into  the  case,  to  see  what  wa8  done  within  ami  what 
was  (lone  without  the  .session  of  the  Senate. 

The  Chikk  Justice.  Tlie  Chief  Justice  is  of  o|)inion  thfit  that  is  an  appli- 
cation which  can  only  be  addressed  to  the  Senate  in  legislative  session.  If  the 
court  desire  it  he  will  vacate  the  chair  in  order  that  the  President  j)^'^  Icinpore 
may  take  it. 

Mr.  Cl'RTis.  I  would  state,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  that  we  have  now  concluded 
our  documentary  evidence  as  at  present  advised  ;  we  may  possibly  desire  here- 
after to  ofter  some  additional  evidence  of  this  character,  but  as  we  now  under- 
stand it  we  shall  not. 

Mr.  J()H.\soN.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  move  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court 
of  impeachment,  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  tw(dve  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Senate  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeach- 
ment adjourned. 


Thursday,  Ajnil  16,  1868. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  counsel  for  the  respondent,  except  Mr.  Stanbery,  appeared  and 
took  the  seats  assigned  them  respectively. 

The  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
preceded  by  Mr.  E.  B.  Washburne,  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accom- 
panied by  the  Speaker  and  Clerk,  appeared  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats 
provided  for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  journal  of  yesterday's 
proceedings. 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  read  the  journal,  but  was  interrupted  by 
"  Mr.  Sherman.  1  move  that  the  reading  of  the  journal  be  dispensed  with. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection  the  reading  of  the  journal  will 
be  dispensed  with.     There  being  no  objection,  it  is  so  ordered. 

Mr.  Sumner.  Mr.  President,  I  send  to  the  Chair  a  declaration  of  opinion  to 
be  adopted  by  the  Senate  as  an  answer  to  the  constantly  recurring  questions 
on  the  admissibility  of  testimony. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  paper  submitted  by  the 
senator  from  Massachusetts. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Considering  tlie  character  of  this  proceed i ri g ;  that  it  is  a  trial  of  impeachment  before  tlie 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  not  a  proceeding  by  indictment  in  an  inferior  court ; 

Considering;  that  senators  are.  from  bcginiiing'  to  end,  judges  or  law  as  well  as  fact,  and 
that  they  are  judo-es  from  whom  there  is  no  appeal ; 

Gonsideriug  that  the  reasons  for  the  exclusion  of  evidence  on  an  ordinary  trial  where  the 
judge  responds  to  the  law  and  the  jury  to  the  fact  are  not  applicable  to  such  a  ])roceeding  ; 

Considering  that  according  to  parliainentavv  nsage,  which  is  the  guide  in  all  such  cases, 
there  is  on  trials  of  impeachment  a  certain  latitude  of  inquiry  and  a  freedom  from  technicality ; 
and 

Considering,  finally,  that  already  in  tlie  course  of  tliis  trial  there  have  been  ditferences  of 
opinion  as  to  the  admissibility  of  evidence  : 

Therefore,  in  order  to  remove  all  such  ditferences  and  to  hasten  the  des])atch  of  business, 
it  is  deemed  advisable  that  all  evidence  offered  on  either  side  not  trivial  or  obviously  irrele- 
vant in  nature  shall  be  received  without  objection,  it  being  understood  that  tlie  same  wheu 
admitted  shall  be  open  to  question  and  comparison  at  the  bar,  in  order  to  determine  its 
competency  and  value,  and  shall  be  carefully  silted  and  weighed  by  senators  in  the  final 
judgment. 

Mr.  Conn  ESS.  Mr.  President,  I  move  to  lay  that  paper  on  the  table,  and  on 
that  motion  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 


590  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  being  taken  resulted — yeas  33,  nays 
11 ;  as  follows: 

Ykas — Messrs.  Buckalew,  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Couklinor,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Crac^in,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Drake,  Kdmun  Is,  FeiTv,  Fesseuden,  Frolinglmysen,  Harlan, 
Howard,  Howe,  Johnson,  Morp:au,  Morrill  of  Maine.,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Patterson  of  New 
Hampshire,  Ponieroy,  Ramsey,  Sanlsbnry,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  and  Yates — 3:5. 

Nays — Messrs.  Anthony,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Morton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Sherman, 
Snmner,  Van  Winkle,  Viokers,  Willey,  and  Wilson — 11. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Bayard,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  McCreery,  Norton,  Nye,  Ross, 
Sprague,  Trumbull,  and  Wade — 10. 

So  the  proposition  was  laid  upon  the  table. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlenaen  of  counsel  for  the  President,  you  will  please 
proceed  with  the  defence. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  lam  not  able  to  announce  the 
recovery  of  Mr.  Stanbery,  but  I  think  had  not  the  weather  been  so  entirely 
unfavorable  he  would  have  been  able  to  be  out,  perhaps,  to-day.  He  is,  how- 
ever, convalescent,  but,  nevertheless,  the  situation  of  his  health  and  proper  care 
for  his  complete  recovery  prevents  us  from  having  much  opportunity  of  consul- 
tation with  him  during  the  intervals  of  the  sessions  of  this  court.  We  shall 
desire  to-day  to  proceed  with  such  evidence  as  we  think  pro])erly  we  can  pro- 
duce in  his  absence,  and  may  occupy  the  session  of  the  court  with  that  evidence 
during  the  usual  hours  of  its  sitting.  We  shall  not  desire  to  protract,  however, 
the  examinations  with  any  such  object  or  view,  and  if  before  the  close  of  the 
ordinary  period  of  the  session  we  should  come  to  that  j)ortion  of  the  testimony 
in  which  we  regard  Mr.  Stanbery's  presence  as  indispensable  we  shall  submit 
that  to  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mi.  Chief  Justice,  T  desire  to  offer  in  evidence  two  documents 
received  this  morning  from  the  Department  of  State,  of  a  characler,  1  believe, 
entirely  similar  to  some  of  those  which  were  received  yesterday.  They  are  in 
continuation  chronologically  of  what  was  put  in  yesterday,  and  merely  complete 
the  series. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Under  the  decision  of  yesterday  we  do  not  object. 
We  understand  them  to  be  the  same  thing.  You  do  not  desire  them  read,  I 
suppose  '{ 

Mr.  Curtis.  No,  I  do  not  desire  them  read. 

Mr.  JoH.\S()N.  State  what  thtiy  are. 

Mr.  Curtis.  They  are  a  continuation  of  the  documents  put  in  yesterday,  so 
as  to  bring  the  evidence  of  the  practice  down  to  a  more  recent  period. 

The  documents  thus  offered  in  evidence  are  attested  by  the  Secretary  of  State 
in  the  usual  form  to  be  copied  from  the  records  of  his  department,  and  coutaixi 
the  letters  of  authority,  designation,  or  appointment  in  the  following  cases  : 

On  the  llth  of  July,  J8.'):l,  Presideiit  Pierce  appointed  Peter  G.  Washington  to  take  charge 
of  the  Treasury  Department  "during  the  expected  absence  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
from  the  seat  of  government." 

On  the  llth  of  July,  ]8.'k5.  President  Pierce  appointed  James  C.  Dobbin  to  be  Acting  Sec- 
retary of  War  in  the  absence  of  Jefferson  Davis. 

On  the  "iitth  of  July,  1653,  President  Pierce  appointed  A.  Dudley  Mann,  Assistant  Secre- 
tary of  State,  to  be  acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Secretary  W. 
L.  Marcy  froui  the  scat  of  governinent. 

On  the  '2:>d  of  September,  ]S')3,  President  Pierce  appointed  Peter  G.  Wa.sliingtou  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Guthrie  from 
the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  !i-tli  of  September,  1853,  President  Pierce  appointed  A.  Dudley  Manu,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State,  to  l)e  acting  Secretary  of  Slate  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Mr. 
Marcy  from  tlie  seat  of  government. 

On  the  Pith  of  April,  1H54,  President  Pierce  appointed  Peter  G.  Washington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  tlie  temporary  absence  of  Secretary  Guthrie 
from  Washington. 

On  the '21st  of  August,  18.")4,  President  Pierce  appointed  William  Hunter  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Mr.  Marcy  from  the  seat  of  government. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  591 

On  the  29tb  of  Aiis'ust,  1851,  Pii'sidoiit  Pierce  appointed  Archibald  Campbell  to  be  acting 
Secretary  of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  from  flie  seat  of  government. 

Oq  the  5th  of  October,  1854,  I'rcsidejit  Pierce  appointed  Peter  G.  Washington  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Guthrie  from 
Wasliington. 

On  the  oOth  of  October,  18.34,  President  Pierce  appointed  Archibald  Campbell,  chief  clerk 
of  the  War  Departnieut,  to  be  acting  Secretary  of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the 
Secretary. 

On  the  3d  of  May,  1855,  President  Pierce  appointed  Peter  G.  Washington  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Guthrie  from  Washington. 

On  the  26th  of  May,  1855,  President  Pierce  appointed  Colonel  Samuel  Cooper,  United 
States  army,  acting  Secretary  of  War,  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary  from  ^ 
the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  21st  of  July,  1855,  President  Pierce  appointed  William  Hunter,  Assistant  Secre- 
tary of  State,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Marcy  being  absent  from  the 
seat  of  government. 

On  the  6th  of  August,  1855,  President  Pierce  appointed  Peter  G.  Washington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secietar)'  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Guthrie  from  Wash- 
ington. 

On  the  9th  of  October,  1856,  President  Pierce  appointed  A.  Campbell  acting  Secretary  of 
War,  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  19th  of  January,  1857,  President  Pierce  appointed  Archibald  Campbell,  acting  Sec- 
retary of  War,  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  od  of  March,  1857,  President  Pierce  appointed  Colonel  Samuel  Cooper,  Adjutant 
General  of  the  army,  to  be  acting  Secretary  of  War. 

On  the  2:5d  of  April,  1857,  President  Buchanan  appainted  Philip  Clayton  to  discharge  the 
duties  o*  Secretary  ot  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  from  Wasliington  of  Secretary  Cobb. 

On  the  1st  of  June,  1857,  President  Buchanan  appointed  John  Appleton  to  be  acting  Sec- 
retary of  State  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Cass  from  the  seat  of  government 

On  the  28th  June,  1858,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Clayton  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Cobb  from  Washington. 

On  the  llith  of  July,  1858,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Clayton  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  from  AVasliingtou  of  Secretary  Cobb. 

On  the  20th  of  August,  1858,  President  Buchiiuan  appointed  John  Appleton,  Assistant  Sec- 
retary of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Secretary 
Cass  from  Washington. 

On  the  2t)th  of  April,  1859,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Clayton  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

On  the  5th  of  July,  1859,  President  Buchanan  appointed  William  K.  Drinkard  to  be  act- 
ing vSecretary  of  War  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  from  his  office. 

On  the  26th  July.  1859,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Clayton  to  act  as  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Secretary  Cobb  from  W^ashingtou,  "from 
and  after  the  1st  of  August." 

On  the  3Uth  of  August,  1359,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Clayton  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  from  Washington  of  Secretary  Cobb. 

On  the  3Uth  May,  186U,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Clayton  to  act  as  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  from  W^ashington  of  Secretary  Cobb. 
On      the  26th  of  June,  186U,  President  Buchanan  appointed  W^illiam  H.  Trescott  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  ihe  Secretary  of  State  from 
Washington. 

On  the  27th  July,  1860,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Clayton  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Cobb  from  Washington. 

On  the  6th  October,  1860,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Clayton  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Cobb  from  Washington. 

On  the  22d  of  October,  i860,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Claytou  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Cobb  from  Wash- 
ington. 

On  the  26th  of  November,  I860,  President  Buchanan  appointed  Philip  Claytou  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  sickness  of  Secretary  Cobb. 

On  the  13tli  of  December,  1860.  President  Buchanan  appointed  W^illiam  Hunter,  chief 
clerk  of  the  Department  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  until  au  apjjointee  should  be 
regularly  comuiissioned. 

On  the  10th  of  December,  1860,  President  Buchanan,  by  virtue  of  the  act  of  Congress 
approved  February  13,  1795,  authorized  Isaac  Toucey,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  "now  vacant  by  the  resignation  of  Howell  Cobb," 
until  a  successor  should  be  appointed  and  the  vacancy  tilled. 

On  the  2d  of  August,  1861,  President  Lincoln  appointed  Thomas  A.  Scott  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary of  War  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Secretary  Cameron  from  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment. 

On  the  8th  of  August,  1861,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge 


592  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during-  the  temporary  absence  from  Washiiif^ton  of 
Salmon  P.  Chase. 

On  the  27th  of  Aiin-ust,  l-'fil.  President  Lincoln  appointed  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State,  ti)  be  actings  Secretary  of  State  during  the  temporarj'  absence  from  tlie 
seat  of  government  of  William  H.  Seward. 

On  the  3d  of  September,  1H(;|,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  S.  P.  Chase  from  Washington. 

On  the  '^fith  of  September,  IfBl,  President  Lincoln  appointed  William  L.  Hodge  to  be 
acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary,  "commencing  from  the 
27th  instant." 

On  the  2d  of  November,  ]8(i].  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury'  during  the  absence  ot  Salmon  P.  Chase  from  Wash- 
ington. 

On  the  4th  of  November,  1861,  President  Lincoln  appointed  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assist- 
ant Secretary  of  State,  to  be  acting  Secretary  of  State  during  the  temporary  absence  of 
William  H.  Seward  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  loth  of  November,  1S61,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  S.  P.  Chase  from 
Washington. 

On  the  18th  of  December,  1861,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasuary  during  the  absence  of  S.  P.  Chase  from 
Washington. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  ]8fi'2,  President  Lincoln,  "pursuant  to  the  act  of  Congress  in  such 
case  made  and  provided,"  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent  from  the  seat  of  government, 
appointed  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Secretary',  to  be  Secretary  of  State. 

On  the  28th  of  January,  1862,  the  Secretary  of. State  being  absent  from  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment. President  Lincoln,  "pursuant  to  the  authority  in  such  case  provided,"  authorized 
Assistant  Secretary  F.  W.  Seward  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State. 

On  the  (ith  of  February,  18(i2,  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent  from  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment, President  Lincoln,  "pursuant  to  the  authority  in  such  case  provided,"  authorized 
Assistant  Secretary  F.  W.  Seward  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State. 

On  the  9th  of  April,  1862,  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent  from  the  seat  of  government, 
President  Lincoln,  "pursuant  to  the  authority  in  such  case  provided,"  authorized  Assistant 
Secretary  F.  W.  Seward  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State. 

On  the  11th  of  April,  186'i,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Salmon  P.  Chase  from  Wash- 
ington. 

On  the  5th  of  May,  1862.  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Salmon  P.  Chase  from  Washington. 

On  the  14th  of  May,  1862,  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent  from  the  seat  of  government, 
President  Lincoln  autliorized  William  Hunter,  chief  clerk  of  the  Department  of  State,  to  per- 
form the  duties  of  Secretary  until  his  return. 

On  the  19th  of  May,  1862,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  din^ing  the  absence  of  Salmon  P.  Chase  from  Wasinno-ton. 

On  the  11th  of  June,  1862,  President  Lincoln  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  State  being 
absent  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  30th  of  June,  I8()2,  President  Lincoln  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  State  being 
absent  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  27th  of  August,  1862,  President  Lincoln  authorized. Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assist- 
ant Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  State 
being  absent  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  8th  of  January,  186:?,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Hamngton  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasiuy  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary,  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

On  the  llith  of  March,  18()3,  PresidiMit  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  <luring  the  alisence  of  the  Secretary,  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

On  the  18th  of  Ajiril,  b^63,  President  Liiu-uln  appointed  tieorge  Harrington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasiuy  during  the  absence  of  the  S(!cretary,  Salmon  P.  Ciiase. 

On  the  27th  of  April,  186:5,  President  Lincoln,  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent, 
appointed  William  Hunter,  chief  clerk  of  the  Dejiartment  of  State,  to  perform  the  duties  of 
Secretary  of  State  until  tlu^  return  of  the  Secretary. 

On  the  21st  of  May,  18();{,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  alisence  of  the  Secretary,  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

On  the  2r)th  of  May,  186:5,  President  i.incnln,  ilie  Secretary  of  State  being  absent,  autlior- 
ized Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Si'cretary,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  Stale. 

On  the  27th  of  July,  18i):$,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  act  as  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  during  tlie  absence  of  tiie  Secretary,  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

On  the  l.^dh  of  August,  186:J,  President  Lincoln,  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent, 
authorized  Fiederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Secretary,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  593 

On  the  lOtli  of  October,  1B63,  Pvesidont  Lincoln  nppoiuted  Lucius  E.  Cliittendon  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Tiea.surydurini^  the  absence  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  Secretary. 

On  the  '2d  of  November,  J8G3,  President  Lincoln,  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent, 
authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Secretary,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State. 

On  the  '2l?d  of  December,  18G:>,  President  I^incoln,  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent, 
.  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Secretary,  to  act  as  Secretaiy  of  State. 

On  the  11th  of  April,  1864,  President  Lincoln,  the  Secretary  of  State  being  absent,  author- 
ized Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Secretary,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State. 

On  the  I4th  of  April,  18(i4,  President  Lincoln  ai)pointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge  tlie 
duties  of  Secretary  of  tlie  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary,  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

On  the  27th  of  April,  1864,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

On  the  7th  of  June,  18()4,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

On  the  3tlth  of  June,  1804,  President  Lincoln  authorized  George  Harrington,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  perform  all  and  singular  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
until  a  successor  to  Mr.  Cliase,  resigned,  should  be  commissioned,  or  until  further  orders. 

On  the  11th  of  July,  1804,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  William  P.  Fessenden,  Secre- 
tary. 

On  the  30th  of  July,  18(54,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Fessenden. 

On  the  '29th  of  August,  1864,  President  Lincoln  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assist- 
ant Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  the 
Secretary,  W.  H.  Seward. 

On  the  26th  of  September,  1864,  President  Lincoln  aiithorized  Frederick  W.  Seward, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence 
of  the  Secretary,  W.  H.  Seward. 

On  the  17th  of  October,  1864,  President  Lincoln  appointed  George  Harrington  to  act  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  Fessenden. 

On  the  4th  of  November,  1864,  President  Lincoln  authorized  William  Huntei',  chief  clerk 
of  the  Department  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  until  the  return  of  the  Secretary,  he 
being  absent. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  1865,  President  Lincoln  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  "  dirring  the  present  temporary  absence  ot 
William  H.  Seward." 

On  the  1st  of  February,  1865,  President  Lincoln  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Wil- 
liam H.  Seward. 

On  the  4th  of  March,  1865,  President  Lincoln  authorized  George  Harrington,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  until  a  succes- 
sor to  Mr.  Fessenden  should  be  commissioned  and  qualified,  or  until  further  orders. 

On  the  10th  of  April,  1865,  President  Lincoln  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  illness  of  William 
H.  Seward. 

On  the  15th  of  April,  1865,  President  Johnson  appointed  William  Hunter  to  perform  the 
duties  of  Secretary  of  State  unUl  otherwise  ordered.  Secretary  Seward  being  sick. 

On  the  26th  of  July,  1865,  President  Johnson  appointed  William  Hunter  to  be  acting  Sec- 
retary of  State  in  the  absence  of  William  H.  Seward. 

On  the  15th  of  August,  1865,  President  Johnson  authorized  William  Hunter  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  in  consequence  of  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  from  the  seat 
of  government. 

On  the  29th  of  September,  1865,  President  Johnson  appointed  William  E.  Chandler, 
Assistant  Secretary,  of  the  Treasury,  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
during  the  absence  of  Secretary  McCulloch. 

On  the  4th  of  October,  1865,  President  Johnson  authorized  William  Hunter,  chief  clerk  of 
the  Department  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  until  the  return  of  the 
Secretary,  he  being  absent. 

On  the  6th  of  November,  1865,  President  Johnson  appointed  William  E.  Chandler  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  McCulloch. 

On  the  20th  of  December,  1865,  President  Johnson  appointed  William  E.  Chandler  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  McCulloch. 

On  the  2(Uh  of  December,  1865,  President  Johnson  appointed  William  E.  Chandler  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  McCulloch. 

On  the  130th  of  December,  1865,  President  Johnson  authorized  William  Hunter  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  being  absent. 

On  the  15th  of  May,  1866,  President  Johnson  authorized  F.  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Secre- 
tary of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  being  absent. 

On  the  4th  of  August,  1866,  President  Johnson  appointed  William  E.  Chandler  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Secretary  McCulloch. 
38  I  P 


594 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


On  the  10th  of  August,  ISGfi,  President  Johnson  authorized  Henry  Stanbery,  Attorney 
General,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  ab.^ence  of  that  Secretary. 

On  the  18th  of  September,  IHfjG,  Pn^sident  Johnson  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  illness 
of  William  H.  Seward. 

On  the  5th  of  October,  1866,  President  Johnson  autliorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assist- . 
ant  Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  illness  of 
^Yilliam  H.  Seward.  , 

On  the  29th  of  October,  1866,  President  Johu.son  authorized  William  Hunter,  Second 
Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence 
of  William  H.  Seward. 

On  the  5th  of  November,  1866,  Pre.sident  Johnson  authorized  William  E.  Chandler  to 
perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Secretary 
McCulloch. 

On  the  2Uth  of  December,  1866,  President  Johnson  authorized  William  E.  Chandler  to 
perform  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Secretary 
McCulloch. 

On  the  2od  of  April,  1867,  President  Johnson  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  William  H.  Seward. 

On  the  1st  of  June,  1867,  President  Johnson  authorized  F.  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Secre- 
tary of  State,  to  act  as  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  W.  H.  Seward. 

On  the  23d  of  July,  18t)7,  President  Johnson  atithorized  William  Hunter,  Second  Assist- 
ant Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of 
William  H.  Seward. 

On  the  Kith  of  September,  1867,  President  Johnson  authorized  John  F.  Hartley  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Secretary 
McCulloch. 

On  the  9th  of  October,  1867,  President  Johnson  authorized  Frederick  W.  Seward,  Assist- 
ant Secretary  of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  of  the 
Secretary,  W.  H.  Seward,  from  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  loth  of  November,  1867,  President  Johnson  appointed  John  F.  Hartley  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  the  absence  of  Secretary  McCulloch 
"  at  any  time  in  the  month  of  November,  1867." 

On  the  11th  of  March,  1868,  President  Johnson  appointed  F.  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Sec- 
retary of  State,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State  during  the  absence  from  the  seat 
of  government  of  Secretary  W.  H.  Seward. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  will  nuw  put  in  evidence,  so  tliat  it  may  be  printed  in  connec- 
tion with  this  documentary  evidence,  statements  furnished  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Senate  under  the  order  of  the  Senate  ;  one  showing  the  beginning  and  ending 
ofyeach  legislative  session  of  Congress  from  1789  to  1868;  and  the  other  being 
a  statement  of  the  beginning  and  ending  of  each  special  session  of  the  Senate 
from  1789  to  1868. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  no  objection. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  evidence  is  received. 

The  documents  are  as  follows  : 

Statement  of  the  beginning  and  ending  of  each  legislative  session  of  Congress, 

from  1789  (!o  1868. 


Congress. 

Session. 

Began. 

Ended. 

1 

1  Congress. 

Session. 

Began. 

Ended. 

l8t 

Ist 

2d 

3d 

Ist 

2d 

lnt 

2d 

Ist 

2d 

Ist 

2d 

3d 

l8t 

2d 

1st 

2d 

Ist 

2d 

l»t 

Mar.    4, 1789 

.Sent.  29. 1789. 

9th....* 

10th 

loth 

11th 

nth 

11th 

12th 

12th 

Kith 

13th 

13tli 

14th 

14th 

1.5th 

15th 

ICth 

lOth 

17th 

;i7th 

2d 

Ist 

2d 

1st 

2d 

3d 

Ist 

2d 

1st 

2d 

3d 

1st 

2d 

lat 

2d 

1st 

2d 

Ist 

2d 

Dec.     1, 1806 
Oct.    26,  1807 
Nov.     7, 1808 
May   22,  1809 
Nov.  27,1809 
Dec.     3,  1810 

Mar.    3,1807. 

1st 

Jan.     4, 1790    Aug.  12, 1790. 
Dec-    6,1790    Mar.    3,  1791. 
Oct.    24,  1791     May     8,  1792. 
Nov.     5,1792    Mar.    2,1793. 
Dec.     2,1793    .Tune    9,  1794. 
Nov.     3,  1794     Mar.    3,  1795. 
Dec.     7,  1795  !  Juuo    1,  179fi. 
Dec.     .">,  1796  1  Mar.    3,  1797. 
May   1.5,  1797  i  Julv  10.  1797. 

Apr.  25, 1808. 

l8t 

Sd 

Mar.  3,1809. 
Juno  28,  1809. 

2d. 

3d 

May  1,  1810. 
Mar.     3,1811. 

3d 

Nov.     4,1811 

July     6,  1812. 

4th 

Nov.     2,  1812 
May   24,  1813 
Dec.     6,  1813 
Sept.  19,  1814 
Dec.      4,  1815 
Dec.     2,  1816 
Dec.     1,  1817 
Nov.  16,  1818 
Dec.     6,  1819 
Nov.  13,  1820 
Dec.     3,  1821 
Dec.     2, 1822 

Mar.    3,1812. 

4th 

,'jth 

Aug.  2,1813. 
Apr.  18,1814. 

5th 

5th 

Nov.  13,  1797 
Dec.     3,  1798 

July  l(i,  1798. 
Mar.    3,  1799. 

Mar.  3,  181.5. 
Apr.  30,  18l(). 

6th 

Dec.     2,  1799 
Nov.  17,  1800 
Dec.     7,  1801 

May  14,  1800. 
.Mar.    3,1801. 
Mav     3.  1802. 

Mar.     3,  1817. 

6th 

Aiir.  20, 1818. 

7th 

Mar.     .3,  1819. 

7th 

Dec.     6, 1802,  Mar.    3,1803. 
Oct.    17,  1803  i  Mar.  27,  1804. 
Nov.     5,  1804     Mar.    3,  1805. 
Dec.l   2, 1805    Apr.  21, 1806. 

May  1.5,  1820. 

feth 

Mar.    3,1821. 

8th 

ath 

May  8, 1822. 
Mar.    3,1823. 

IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 


595 


Stateincnt  of  the  beginning  and  ending  of  each  legislative  session  of  Congress, 
from  1789  to  1868— Continued. 


Congress. 

Session. 

leth 

1st  -• 

2d 

1st 

2d 

1st 

2d 

1st 

2d 

Ist 

2d 

1st 

2d 

1st 

2d 

1st 

2d 

3d 

1st 

2d 

1st 

2d 

3d 

1st 

2d 

lat 

IStli 

l!)th 

litth 

2()th 

20th 

21st 

21st 

25(1 

22d 

23(1 

23d 

24th 

2-lth 

25th 

25th 

25th 

2()th 

26th 

27th 

2~th 

27th 

2Sth 

28th 

29th 

Began. 


Congress. 


Session. 


Began. 


Ended. 


Dec. 
Dec. 

Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Sept. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Miiy 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 
Dec. 


1,182;! 

6, 1824 

5,  1825 
4, 18v;6 

3. 1827 

1. 1828 
7, 1809 

6,  1830 
5,1831 
3, 1832 
2,  1833 
1,  1834 
7, 1835 

5. 18.36 
4, 1837 

4. 18.37 
.3, 1838 
2, 1839 

7,  1840 
31, 1841 

6,1841 

5. 1842 

4. 1843 

2. 1844 

1. 1845 


May  27,1824. 
Mm-.  3, 1825. 
May  22,  1826. 
Mar.  3  4827. 
May  26, 1828. 
Mar.  3, 1829. 
May  31,  1830. 
Mar.  3,  1831. 
July  16,1832. 
Jlar.  2,  1833. 
June  30, 1834. 
JIar.  3, 1835. 
July  4,  1836. 
Mar.  3,  1837. 
Oct.  16,1837. 
■July  9,  1838. 
Mar.  3,  1839. 
July  21, 1840. 
Mar.  3,1841. 
Sept.  13, 1841. 
Aug.  31, 1842. 
Mar.  3, 1843. 
June  11, 1844. 
Mar.  3, 1845. 
Aug.  10, 1846. 


29th 

30th 

30th 

31st 

31st 

32d 

32d 

33d 

33d 

34th 

34th 

34th 

35th 

35th 

36th 

36th 

37th 

37th 

37th 

38th 

38th 

39th 

39th 

40th 

40th 


2d.: 

1st  , 

2d. 

1st 

2d., 

Ist  , 

2d., 

1st  , 

2d., 

Ist  . 

2d.. 

3d.. 

1st  . 

2d.. 

Ist  . 


2d.. 
1st  . 
2d.. 
3d.. 
Ist  . 
2d.. 
1st  . 
2d.. 
1st  . 
2d.. 


Dec.     7 

Dec.     6, 

Dec. 

Dec.     3, 

Dec, 

Dec 

Dec.     6, 

Dec. 

Dec. 

Dec. 

Aug.  21 

Dec.     1 

Dec. 

Dec. 

Dec. 

Dec. 

July 

Dec. 

Dec. 

Dec. 

Dec. 

Dec. 

Dee. 

March  4 

Dec. 


,1846 

,1817 
:,  1848 
:,  1849 
I,  1850 
,  1851 
;  18.52 
.,  18.53 
,  18.'')4 
,  18.55 
,  1856 
,  18.56 
,  1857 
;,  18.58 
,  1859 
:,  I860 
,  1861 
:,  1861 
,  1862 
,  1863 
,  1864 
,  1665 
.  1866 
,1867 
;,  1867 


Mar.  3, 
Aug.  14 
Mar.  3, 
."^(■pt.  30, 
Mar.  3, 
Aug.  31 
Mar.  3, 
Aug.  7 
Mar.  3, 
Aug.  18, 
Aug.  30, 
Mar.  3, 
June  14 
Mar.  3 
June  25, 
Mar.  2, 
Aug.  6, 
July  17, 
Mar.  3, 
July  4 
Mar.  3, 
July  25, 
Mar. 
Dec. 


,  1847. 
,  1848. 

1. 1849. 

1. 1850. 
,  1851. 
,1852. 
,  1853. 
,  1854. 
,  1855. 
!,  1856. 
',  1856. 
,  1857. 
,  1858. 
,  1859. 
,  1860. 
,  1861. 
,  1861. 
',  1862. 
:,  1863. 
,  1864. 
1,1865. 
;  1866. 
,  1867. 
,  1867. 


Office  Secretary  of  the  Senate,  April  16, 1868. 
I  certify  that  the  foregoing  statement  is  correct  as  appears  by  the  records  of  the  Senate. 

J.  W.  FORNEY,  Secretary. 

Statement  of  the  heginning  and  ending  of  each  special  session  of  the    Senate 

from  1789  to  1868. 

Began.  Ended. 

March  4,  1797 March    4,  1797. 

March  4,  IbOl March    5,  1801. 

March  4,  1809 March    7,  ]809. 

March  4,  1817 March    6,  1817. 

March  4,  1825 March    9,  182.5. 

March  4,  1829 March  17,  1829. 

March  4,  1837 March  10,  1837. 

March  4,  1841 March  15,  1841. 

March  4,  1845 March  20,  1845. 

March  .5.  1849 March  23,  1849. 

March  4,  1851 March  13,  1851. 

March  4,  1853 April    1],  1853. 

March  4,  1857 March  14,  1857. 

June  15,  1858 .June    16,  18.58- 

March  4,  1859 March  10,  1859. 

Juue  2P,  1860 Juue    28,  1860. 

March  4,  1 861 March  28,  1 861 . 

March  4,  1863 / March  1 4,  1863. 

March  4,  1865 March  11,  1865. 

April    1,  1867 April    20,  1867. 

Office  Secretary  of  the  Senate, 

A'pril  16,  1868. 
I  certify  that  the  foregoing  statement  i.s  correct,  as  appears  by  the  records  of  the  Senate. 

J.  W.  FORNEY,  Secretary. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  Sergeaut-at-arms  will  now  please  call  Walter  S.  Cox. 

Walter  S.  Cox  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 
Question.  State  what  is  your  residence  and  what  is  your  profession. 


596  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Answer.  I  reside  in  Georgetown,  in  this  District.    lam  a  lawyer  by  profession. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  practice  of  the  law  ? 

A.  Some  twenty  years,  1  think. 

Q.  In  this  city  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  courts  ? 

A.  In  the  courts  of  this  District  and,  most  of  the  time,  in  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

Q.  Were  you  connected  professionally  with  the  matter  of  General  Thomas 
before  the  criminal  court  of  this  District  or  before  a  magistrate  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  When  and  under  what  circumstances  did  your  connection  with  that  mat- 
ter begin  ? 

A.  On  Saturday,  the  22d  of  February 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment,  please.  If  I  heard  the  question  cor- 
rectly, the  inquiry  put  to  the  witness  was,  when  and  under  what  circumstances 
did  your  connection  with  the  case  of  Thomas  before  the  Supreme  Court,  or  the 
chief  justice  of  the  District,  commence  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  was  the  question  in  substance. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  To  that  we  must  object.  It  is  impossible  to  see  how 
the  employment  of  Mr.  Cox  to  defend  Mr.  Thomas  can  have  anything  to  do 
with  this  case.  It  stands  in  this  way :  we  put  in  that  Mr.  Thomas  said  that  if 
it  had  not  been  for  the  arrest  he  should  have  taken  the  War  Office  by  force,  as 
he  had  threatened.  The  defence  then  produced  the  warrant  and  affidavit  and 
the  record  of  his  acquittal.  I  do  not  propose  to  argue  it ;  but  I  ask  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Senate  to  the  question  whether  the  employment  of  Mr.  Cox  by  Mr. 
Thomas  as  counsel,  the  circumstances  under  which  he  was  employed,  and  the 
declaration  of  Mr.  Thomas  to  his  counsel,  can  be  put  in  evidence  under  any  rule, 
even  the  one  which  the  Senate  has  just  voted  should  not  be  the  governing 
rule  of  this  body — the  exception  to  evidence  as  too  trivial — if  it  were  not  legally 
incompetent  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  understand  the  objection  to  be  that  we  cannot  show  that  Gene- 
ral Thomas  employed  Mr.  Cox  as  his  counsel ;  that  we  cannot  show  declarations 
made  by  Mr.  Thomas  to  Mr.  Cox,  as  his  counsel.  We  do  not  propose  to  prove 
either  of  those  facts.  If  the  gentleman  will  wait  long  enough  to  see  what  we 
do  propose  to  prove,  he  will  see  that  that  objection  is  not  applicable.  (To  the 
witness.)  Will  you  now  state,  sir,  when,  and  by  whom,  and  under  what  cir- 
cumstances you  were  employed  in  that  matter? 

IVIr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  one  moment.  I  object.  The  question  is,  when, 
and  by  whom,  and  under  what  circumstances  this  gentleman  was  employed  ? 
If  he  was  employed  by  the  President,  that  is  worse  than  the  otlier,  in  my  judg- 
ment, as  a  legal  proposition.  I  desire  that  the  question  be  put  in  writing,  that 
we  may  have  a  ruling  upon  it ;  or,  to  save  time,  if  the  learned  counsel  will  put  in 
exactly  what  he  proposes  to  prove  by  this  witness,  we  can  meet  the  whole  of  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  sees  no  objection  to  the  question  as 
an  introductory  question,  but  will  submit  it  to  the  Senate  if  it  is  desired. 
(After  a  pause,  to  the  witness.)     You  can  answer  the  question. 

A.  On  Saturday,  the  22d  of  February,  a  messenger  called  at  my  house  with 
a  carriage,  and  stated  that  IMr.  Seward  desired  to  see  me  immediately 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  object  to  the  declarations  of  any  person  there. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  You  need  not  state  anything  that  Mr. 
Seward  said  to  you. 

The  WuiWESS.  Nothing  was  said  by  Mr.  Seward.  The  messenger  stated 
further  that  he  was  directed  to  take  me  immediately  to  the  I'resident's  House. 
I  accomijunicd  him  to  the  President's  House,  and  found  the  President  and  Gen- 
eral 'ITiomas  there  alone. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  597 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  At  wliat  hour,  or  about  what  liour? 

A.  At  about  tive  o'clock  iu  the  afternoon.  After  I  was  seated  the  President 
stated 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  I  object  to  the  statement  of  the 
President  at  5  o'clock  iu  the  afternoon.     [Laughter.] 

The  CiiiKK  Justice.  Will  the  counsel  for  the  President  state  the  object  of 
this  testimony  1 

]\[r.  Curtis  rose. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  desire  that  that  may  be  put  in  writing,  Mr.  Chief 
Justice. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  offer  to  prove  will  be  put  in  writing  if  any  senator 
requires  it. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  ask  that  the  offer  to  prove  may  be  put  in  writing,  that  we 
may  all  understand  precisely  what  the  question  is. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  put  what  they  propose  to  prove 
in  writing. 

The  offer  was  reduced  to  writing  and  sent  to  the  desk. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  proposition. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

^Ye  oifer  to  prove  that  Mr.  Cox  was  employed  professionally  by  the  President,  iu  the  pres- 
ence of  General  Thomas,  to  take  such  legal  proceeding's  in  the  case  that  had  been  commenced 
against  General  Thomas  as  would  be  effectual  to  raise  judicially  the  question  of  Mr.  Stanton's 
legal  right  to  continue  to  hold  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  against  the 
authority  of  the  President,  and  also  in  reference  to  obtaining  a  writ  of  (juo  loarranto  for  the 
same  purpose ;  and  we  shall  expect  to  follow  up  this  proof  by  evidence  of  what  was  done  by 
the  witness  in  pursuance  of  the  above  employment. 

Mr.  Edmu\ds.  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  ask  an  oral  question,  if  there 
be  no  objection. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection  the  senator  from  Vermont  wdl 
ask  his  question. 

Mr.  Edmuxds.  I  wish  to  ask  at  what  date  this  interview  is  alleged  to  have 
taken  place? 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  22d  of  February. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  This  testimony  is  liable  to  two  objections,  if  not  more, 
but  two  sufficient,  Mr.  President  and  senators.  The  first  is  that  after  tlie  act 
done,  and  after  the  matter  was  in  course  of  impeachment,  was  in  proceeding 
before  the  House,  and  after  Mr.  Stanton  had,  to  protect  himself,  made  an  afii- 
davit  that  he  expected  to  be  turned  out  of  his  otfice  by  force,  the  President  sent, 
as  is  proposed  to  be  proved,  for  Mr.  Cox,  the  witness,  and  gave  him  certain 
directions.  It  is  alleged  that  those  directions  were  that  he  should  prepare  a  quo 
warranto.  I  had  supposed  that  siich  a  quo  tcarranto  was  to  be  filed  by  the  Attor- 
ney General,  if  at  all,  but  that  that  process  had  substantially  gone  out  of  use,  and 
an  information  iu  the  nature  of  a  writ  of  quo  uarranto  would  have  been  the  proper 
proceeding,  and  that  information  must  be  exhibited  by  the  Attorney  General. 

Now,  then,  let  us  see  just  here  how  the  case  stands.  The  President  had  told 
General 'Sherman  that  the  reason  w^hy  he  did  not  apply  to  lawyers,  and  why  he 
took  army  officers  into  this  trouble,  was  that  it  was  impossible  to  make  up  a 
case.  One  of  the  senators  asked  him  to  repeat  that  answer,  and  he  repeated  it. 
The  President  said  to  him,  "  I  am  told  by  the  lawyers  that  it  is  impossible  to 
make  up  a  case."  After  he  had  been  told  that,  and  after  he  had  been  convinced 
of  that,  he  still  went  on  to  make  the  removal,  and  he  undertakes  to  show  to  you 
here  that  he  made  the  removal  to  make  up  a  case  which  he  himself  declared  was 
impossible  to  be  made  up.  It  is  apparent  that  no  case  would  by  possibility 
have  got  into  a  court  except  for  the  declarations  and  the  threats  of  this  officer 
Thomas  to  turn  by  force  Stanton  out  of  the  War  Oftice.     That  having  been  done, 


598  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

he  sends  for  a  very  proper  counsel,  as  I  have  no  doubt  the  Senate  will  be  quite 
convinced  before  we  get  through.  Jle  sends  for  a  very  proper  counsel  for  Mr. 
Thomas,  and  having  got  him  there  he  undertakes  then  to  make  up  a  case  for 
the  Senate,  before  which  he  was  to  be  brought  by  impeachment.  Now  they 
say  they  expect  to  prove  that  the  President  wanted  a  tase  made  up  to  go  to  the 
courts,  and  that  in  pursuance  of  that  Mr.  Cox  so  acted. 

Mr.  Cox  cannot  be  allowed  to  testify  to  that  for  another  reason.  They  them- 
selves have  put  in  the  record  (which  imports  absolute  verity  and  cannot  be  contra- 
dicted by  parol  or  other  evidence)  that  General  Thomas  was  dismissed  upon 
the  motion  of  his  counsel.  Upon  the  motion  of  his  counsel  the  case  was  dis- 
missed. Therefore  we  object,  in  the  first  place,  that  tliis  declaration  of  the 
President  to  his  lawyer  after  the  fact  and  after  he  was  in  process  of  being  im- 
peached for  that  fact,  shall  not  be  put  in  evidence  in  view  of  the  circumstances. 
We  object,  then,  that  Avhat  was  done  in  court  shall  not  be  proved  except  by  the 
record,  which  I  believe  there  is  no  lawyer  in  the  Senate,  and  no  layman  either, 
will  ever  believe  for  a  moment  can  be  allowed.  Then  we  object  further  on  this 
matter  that  this  whole  proceeding  was  between  other  parties  in  the  court.  There 
is  no  evidence  from  the  record,  so  far  as  it  has  been  put  in  here,  (and  the  whole 
record  is  put  in,)  that  the  President  went  into  that  court  and  asked  to  have  that 
case  carried  on,  that  he  showed  his  hand,  or  that  he  made  himself  apparent. 
He  does  not  appear  upon  the  record.  He  does  not  appear  as  employing  counsel. 
It  looks  as  though  it  was  the  case  of  General  Thomas,  and  the  court  dealt  with 
it  as  the  case  of  General  Thomas. 

If  the  President  had  gone  and  asked  that  the  case  might  be  decided  as  a  great 
constitutional  question,  non  constat  but  that  the  court  would  have  decided  it, 
but  they  did  not  do  so.  All  that  appears  on  the  record  is  that  this  gentleman 
or  some  other  appeared  as  counsel  for  General  Thomas ;  and  the  question  was 
one  whether  General  Thomas  should  be  held  under  bonds  or  whether,  under  the 
circumstances,  he  was  likely  to  appear  and  answer  further  when  the  grand  jury 
sat,  it  being  then  found  that  there  was  no  danger  from  his  personal  action  by 
violence. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  I  will  first  notice  some  of  the 
suggestions  made  by  the  learned  and  honorable  manager  that  seem  to  us  not  to 
have  any  particular  bearing  upon  the  question  of  evidence  now  submitted  to  yoit, 
but  which  may  be  noticed.  He  says  that  the  Attorney  General  alone  can  insti- 
tute a  quo  warranto.  The  Attorney  General  has  by  law  no  official  function  in 
any  court  except  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  a  qvo  warranto 
proceeding  would  need  to  be  commenced  in  the  court  of  the  District.  A  quo 
warranto  proceeding,  as  has  heretofore  been  contended  on  the  part  of  the  man- 
agers, and  in  regard  to  which  no  dispute  has  arisen,  can  only  be  made,  it  is 
supposed  by  them,  on  the  part  of  the  government  and  not  on  the  part  of  the 
officer  who  has  been  detruded  from  office.  That  is  one  thing;  but  the  question 
whether  that  action  of  the  government  can  be  taken  in  any  court  only  by  the 
Attorney  General  is  qiiite  a  different  matter,  and  it  might  appear  that  if  this  adhe- 
sion of  the  Attorney  General,  or  his  approval  that  the  proceeding  should  be  taken 
by  the  professional  advisers  employed  to  that  end,  was  necessary,  we  should  be 
able  to  produce  that  proof. 

Now,  it  is  said  that  after  the  President  told  General  Sherman  that  it  was 
impossible  to  make  up  a  case  it  is  now  impossible  for  us  to  show  that  he  did 
attempt  to  make  up  a  case.  This  is,  I  suppose,  a  new  application  of  the  doc- 
trine of  estoppel.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  see  any  other  a))propriatencss  in  it. 
But  the  fact  is  simply  this  :  that  when,  in  advance  of  the  official  action  of  tlie 
President  to  or  towards  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  and  when  General  Sher- 
man was  asked  to  receive  from  the  Chief  Executive  the  authority  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  tliis  office  ad  interim,  and  wlu'ii  General  Sherman  was  revolving 
iu  his  own  mind  his  duty  as  a  citizen  and  as  a  friend  and  servant  of  the  govern- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  599 

merit  and  sought  to  inquire  why  this  matter  which  the 'President  desired  to  te?t 
and  to  have  his  presence  in  the  controversy  to  enabre  him  to  test,  could  not 
be  tested  by  the  Lawyers  alone,  without  bringing  in  a  deposit  of  the  ad  interim 
authority  in  any  otKcer,  the  President  replied  that  it  was  impossible  to  make  up 
a  case  except  by  such  executive  action  as  should  lay  the  basis  for  judicial  inter- 
ference and  determination.  Then,  in  advance,  the  President  did  not  anticipate 
the  necessity  of  being  driven  to  this  judicial  controversy,  because,  in  the  alter- 
native of  General  Sherman's  adceptiug  this  trust  thus  reposed  in  him,  the  Pres- 
ident expected  the  retirement  of  Mr.  Stanton,  and  thus  by  that  acquiescence  no 
need  would  arise  for  further  controversy  in  court  or  elsewhere.  That  is  the 
condition  of  the  proof  as  it  now  stands  before  the  Senate,  or  as  we  upon  it 
shall  contend  that  it  now  stands  in  the  judgment  of  the  Senate,  in  regard  to 
what  occurred  between  the  President  and  General  Sherman. 

We  have  already  seen  in  proof  that  General  Thomas  received  from  the  Pres- 
ident on  the  21st  of  February  this  designation  to  take  charge  of  the  office  from 
Mr.  Stanton  if  he  retired,  a*nd  his  report  to  the  President  in  the  first  instance 
of  what  was  regarded  as  an  equivalent  to  an  acquiescence  by  Mr.  Stanton  in 
this  demand  of  the  office  and  its  surrender  to  the  charge  of  General  Thomas. 
It  has  then  been  shown  in  evidence  that  General  Thomas  was  arrested  on  the 
morning  of  the  22d,  and  that  before  he  went  into  court  he  communicated  that 
fact  to  the  President  and  received  the  President's  response  that  that  was  as 
they  wished  it  should  be,  to  have  the  matter  in  court. 

Now,  we  propose  to  show  that  on  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  the  matter 
then' being  in  court,  (and  which  the  President  had  said  was  according  to  his 
desire,  always  supposing  that  there  was  not  a  retirement  which  rendered  further 
controversy  and  trouble  unnecessary  to  the  parties  and  the  country,)  the  Presi- 
dent did  take  it  up  as  his  controversy  between  the  Constitution  and  the  law,  to 
be  determined  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the  country  by  the  most  rapid 
method  that  the  law  and  competent  advisers  as  to  the  law  should  permit.  And 
we  are  met  by  the  novelty  of  objection  that  when  the  matter  to  be  proved  is  not 
the  state  of  the  recurd  between  the  United  States  and  General  Thomas  in  that 
criminal  complaint,  but  the  state  of  facts  as  regards  the  action  and  purpose  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  in  attempting  to  produce  before  the  tribunals 
of  the  country  for  solemn  judicial  determination  the  matter  in  controversy,  as 
the  record  of  the  criminal  charge  made  and  dismissed  does  notjcontain  the  name 
and  action  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  this  behalf  we  cannot  show 
what  did  occur  and  what  was  the  action  of  the  President. 

The  learned  manager  says  it  does  not  appear  by  the  record  that  the  Presi- 
dent made  this  his  conti'oversy  and  attempted  these  objects  and  pursued  this 
purpose.  Certainly  it  does  not ;  and  if  any  lawyer  can  see  how  and  why  and 
in  what  possible  method  of  application  in  tlie  i-ecord  of  a  prosecution  of  General 
Thomas  by  the  United  States  for  an  infraction  criminally  of  the  civil  tenure-of- 
office  bill  the  action  of  the  President  should  appear,  we  might,  perhaps,  be  pre- 
cluded by  some  of  these  suggestions  and  arguments  ;  but  still  the  matter  would 
be  v/holly  aside  from  the  real  point  of  inquiry  here. 

Now,  3Ir.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  we  are  not  to  be  judged  by  the  mea- 
sure of  the  proof  that  we  are  able  to  oii'er  throu^di  this  witness,  as  regards  the 
effect  and  value  of  the  entire  evidence  bearing  upon  this  point  as  it  shall  be 
drawn  from  this  Avitness  and  from  other  witnesses,  and  from  other  forms  of  tes- 
timony. We  stand  here  definitely,  and  so  as  not  to  be  misunderstood,  on  this 
proposition,  that  when  the  alternative,  not  expected  by  the  President,  of  the 
resistance  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  this  form  of  resignation  or  retirement  demanded  or 
removal  claimed,  whatever  you  choose  to  call  it,  was  presented,  so  that  he  was 
obliged  to  find  resources  in  the  law,  which  he  had  contemplated  as  a  thing 
greatly  to  be  desired,. but  impos.sible  without  the  antecedent  proceedings  upon 
which  a  proper  footing  could  be  gained  in  the   courts,  *he  then  did,  with  such 


GOO  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

promptness  and  such  decision,  and  sucli  clear  and  unequivocal  purpose  as  will 
be  indicated  in  the  evidence,  assume  immediately  that  service  and  that  duty ; 
and  it  will  appear  that  the  opportunity  thus  presented  to  him  for  a  more  rapid 
determination  than  a  quo  tcarranto  or  an  information  in  the  nature  of  a.  quo  war- 
ranto  would  permit  being  seized,  it  was  prevented  by  the  action  of  Mr.  Stanton, 
the  prosecutor,  and  of  the  court,  upon  the  movements  of  the  prosecution  to  get 
the  case  out  of  court,  as  frivolous  and  unimportant  in  its  proceeding  against  Gen- 
eral Thomas,  and  becoming  formidable  and  ofPensive  when  it  gave  an  opportu- 
nity for  the  President  of  the  United  States  by  habeas  corpus  to  get  a  prompt 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ;  and  then  to  show  that,  this 
opportunity  being  thus  evaded,  the  President  proceeded  as  he  might  with 
instructions  that  the  only  other  recourse  of  judicial  determination  by  an  infor- 
mation in  the  nature  of  quo  warranto  was  resorted  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Mr.  President,  I  am  very  glad  for  an  opportunity 
afforded  me  by  the  remarks  of  the  learned  counsel  for  tjie  President  to  deal  a 
moment  with  the  doctrine  of  estoppel.  I  premise  'that  an  argument  has  been 
founded  to  the  prejudice  of  my  cause  by  a  use  of  remarks  which  I  made,  to 
which  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate,  as  bearing  upon  what  is  the 
doctrine  of  estoppel  which  is  put  forward  here  now  by  the  counsel  who  has  just 
sat  down.  I  will  not  be  long.  I  pray  you,  senators,  to  remember  that  I  have 
never  referred  to  this  argument,  although  it  has  been  a  sort  of  rmde  viecvm  with 
the  counsel  of  the  defence  ever  since  it  was  delivered.  When  I  Avas  discussing 
the  obloquy  thrown  upon  Mr.  Stanton  about  his  deserting  his  office  I  said  these 
words : 

To  desert  it  now,  therefore,  would  be  to  imitate  the  tn^eachery  of  his  accidental  chief.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  construction  of  the  "  tenure-of-civil-office  act"  by  others,  or  as  regards 
otliers,  Andrew  Johnson,  the  respondent,  is  conchrded  upon  it. 

He  permitted  Mr.  Stanton  to  exercise  the  duties  of  his  oliice  in  spite  of  it,  if  that  office 
were  affected  by  it.  He  suspended  him  under  its  provision  ;  he  reported  that  suspension  to 
the  Senate  with  liis  reasons  therefor,  in  accordance  with  its  provi.-^ions  ;  and  the  Senate, 
acting'  under  it,  declined  to  concur  with  him,  whereby  ISIr.  Stanton  was  reinstated.  In  the 
well-knowu  language  of  the  law,  is  not  the  respondent  esto])ped  by  his  solemn  official  acts 
from  denying  the  legality  and  constitutional  propriety  of  Mr.  Stanton's  position  ? 

That  is  all  I  said.  I  never  said,  nor  intended  to  say,  nor  do  the  words 
honestly  bear  out  any  man  in  assuming  that  I  said,  that  the  President  was 
estopped  from  trying  hi&  case  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  and 
showing  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  law,  as  was  argued  in  the  opening  and 
as  has  been  more  than  once  referred  to  since.  I  said  that,  as  between  him  and 
Mr.  Stanton,  Mr.  Stanton's  position  was  such  that  he  was  estopped  from  denyiag 
the  legal  propriety  of  that  position  or  the  constitutional  propriety  of  it ;  and 
thereupon  it  was  argued  that  I  claimed  on  behalf  of  the  managers  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  that  the  President  was  estopped  from  trying  his  case  or 
denying  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  here ;  and  we  have  had  a  learned  argu- 
ment, starting  from  Coke  and  brought  downward,  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of 
estoppel  did  not  apply  to  the  law.  Who  ever  thought  it  did  %  I  think  there  is 
only  one  point  wliere  the  doctrine  of  estoppel  should  apply,  senators,  in  this 
case,  and  that  is  that  coHusel  should  be  estopped  from  misrepiesenting  the  argu- 
ment of  their  opponents  and  tluni  making  an  argument  to  the  prejudice  of  them. 
That  is  an  application  of  the  doctrine  of  estoppel  that  I  want  carried  out  through 
this  trial. 

1  have  not  said  that  the  President  was  estoppc-d  from  showing  that  he  attempted 
to  put  this  man  forward  as  his  counsel  by  his  declaration  to  General  Thomas. 
1  have  only  said  that  the  fact  that  he  spoke  to  Sherman  and  said  to  him,  "  It  is 
impossible  to  make  up  a  case,"  shows  that  he  should  not  be  allowed,  after  the 
fact,  to  attempt,  if  possible,  to  get  up  a  defence  by  calling  this  counsel  in. 

It  is  ask(Hl  what  lawyer  could  suppose  that  it  would  appear  of  record  that  the 
President  of  the  United  Slates  was  engaged  iu  this  controversy  ?     Fair  dealing, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  601 

lioiiosty  of  purpose,  upriglitness  of  action,  frankness  of  political  position,  would 
have  made  it  ap))areut.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  if  be  employed 
counsel  for  Mr.  Thomas  in  this  case,  should  have  sent  his  counsel  into  court, 
and  they  should  have  there  said:  "  j\Ir.  Chief  Justice,  Ave  are  appearing  at  the 
instance  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  trying  a  great 
constitutional  question  which  he  has  endeavored  to  raise  here,  and  for  that  pur- 
pose we  want  to  get  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States."  If 
then  the  chief  justice  of  this  District  had  refused  to  hear  that  case,  there  mio;'ht 
be  some  ground  for  the  harsh  word  "evasion"  which  the  counsel  has  applied  to 
him,  for  he  says  the  question  was  evaded.  By  whom"?  It  must  have  been  by 
the  chief  justice  of  this  District,  for  he  alone  made  the  decision.  He  says  that 
Air.  Stanton  had  this  case  so  conducted  as  to  evade  this  decision.  The  record 
of  the  court  shows  that  this  man  Thomas  was  discharged  on  the  motion  of  his 
counsel.  If  they  had  not  moved  that  he  be  discharged  I  venture  to  say  he 
would  not  have  been  discharged;  certainly  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  would 
have  been,  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  would  have  been.  Now  they 
Lave  put  in  the  fact  that  he  was  discharged  at  the  motion  of  his  own  counsel, 
and  they  come  back  to  us  and  tell  us — what  ?  That  they  want  to  show  through 
Ml".  Cox  that  the  chief  justice  evaded  this  p:iint,  for  nobody  else  made  that  deci- 
sion If  you  allow  Mr.  Cox  to  come  in  and  say  what  the  President  told  him, 
if  you  can  put  in  his  declarations  made  to  Mr.  Cox,  then  I  suppose  we  shall  next 
have  his  declarations  made  to  Mr.  Merrick  and  Mr.  Aiken,  and  all  that  class  of 
counsel  whom  the  President  brings  about  him;  and  having  got  them  in,  we 
shall  have  to  bring  before  you  the  chief  justice  to  give  his  account  of  the  matter, 
and  we  shall  have  to  get  up  a  side-bar  issue  to  try  whether  the  proceedings  iu 
the  supreme  court  of  this  District  were  regular  or  otherwise.  It  is — I  will  not 
say  designedly — but  artistically  contrived  for  the  purpose  of  leading  us  away 
from  the  issue.  We  are  to  go  to  some  other  issue  and  some  other  point,  and  I 
never  have  heard  in  any  court  such  a  proposition. 

A  single  word,  now,  about  this  matter  of  quo  ivarranto.  A  reasonable  degree 
of  frankness  on  this  question,  I  think,  as  it  is  a  very  plain  one  to  lawyers,  would 
not  harm  anybody.  I  undertake  to  say  that  every  lawyer  knows  that  an 
information  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  tvarranto  cannot  be  prosecuted,  except  in  the 
name  of  the  Attorney  General,  for  any  public  office ;  and  if  any  case  can  be 
found  and  shown  in  this  country  where  it  has  been  prosecuted  differently  I  will 
beg  my  friend's  pardon,  and  that  is  a  thing  I  should  not  like  to  do  upon  this 
question. 

Do  they  say  that  this  q^io  loarranto,  whether  by  Cox  or  Staubery,  has  ever 
been  presented  to  any  court  ?  No  ;  not  at  all.  Has  anybody  ever  heard  of 
that  writ  of  quo  warranto  until  it  becomes  a  necessity  for  this  defence  ?  Ay, 
and  until  I  put  it  into  that  opening  speech,  which  has  taught  my  friends  so 
much,  if  I  may  take  their  continual  reference  to  it — up  to  that  time  had  we 
ever  heard  of  a  quo  warranto  from  any  source '?  Plas  it  ever  been  said  here 
until  since  that  time?  Never,  never.  I  will  not  object  to  any  writ  of  quo 
warranto,  or  information  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  ivarranto,  filed  in  any  court  from 
a  justice  of  the  peace  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  if  they 
will  show  it  was  filed  before  the  21st  day  of  February,  or  prepared,  or  that  it 
has  been  filed  since,  until  this  man  was  impeached.  But  I  want  that  to  come 
from  the  record,  and  not  from  the  memory  of  Mr.  Cox. 

You  may  say,  senators,  that  I  am  taking  too  much  time  upon  this  matter; 
but  it  is  really  aiding  you,  because  if  you  open  this  sort  of  declaration  from  the 
President  he  can  keep  the  trial  going  on  from  now  until  next  July,  ay,  and 
from  next  July  until  the  following  March,  precisely  as  his  defenders  iu  the 
House  of  Representatives  threatened  they  would  if  we  carried  on  this  impeach- 
ment. "Forewarned,  fn-earraed,"  senators.  His  defenders  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  when,  we  were  arguing  this  matter — it  has  gone  into  history — 


602  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

said,  "Yon  mny  impeach  him,  but  if  you  do  we  will  make  you  take  all  the  forms, 
and  hi>5  ofScial  life  will  be  ended  before  you  can  got  through  the  forms  of 
impeachment;  we  will  protract  it  till  next  March."  That  was  the  threat,  and 
then,  in  pursuance  of  that  threat,  although  your  summons  required  him  to  file 
his  ansAver  on  the  day  of  appearance,  as  every  other  summons  did,  he  came  into 
this  Senate  and  asked  for  forty  days.  He  got  ten.  He  then  first  asked  for 
delay,  so  that  forty-three  days  have  been  expended  since  he  ought  to  have  filed 
his  answer  by  the  order,  and  thirty- three  since  he  actually  filed  it,  and  of  those 
but  six  on  the  part  of  the  managers  have  been  expended  on  the  trial,  and  but  a 
part  of  six  have  been  expended  on  the  trial  by  the  counsel  for  the  defence ;  and 
the  rest,  twenty-odd  working  days,  with  the  whole  country  pausing  while  ihis 
is  going  on,  with  murders  going  on  through  the  southern  country  unrebuked, 
twenty-odd  days  have  been  used  up  in  lenity  to  him  and  his  counsel,  and  now 
we  are  asked  to  go  into  entirely  a  side-bar  issue.  It  is  neither  relevant,  in  my 
judgment,  nor  competent  under  any  legal  rule,  and  if  it  were  here  it  could  have 
no  effect. 

Mr.  Ferry.  ]\[r.  President,  I  desire  to  put  a  question  to  the  counsel  for  the 
President.     I  send  it  to  the  Chair. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Connecticut. 

The  Secretary  read  it,  as  follows  : 

Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  propose  to  contradict  or  vary  the  statement  of  the  docket 
entries  produced  by  them  to  the  effect  that  General  Thomas  was  discharged  by  Chief  Justice 
Cartter  on  the  motion  of  the  defendant's  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Curtis,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  will  respond  to  the  question  of  the  senator 
that  the  counsel  do  not  expect  or  desire  to  contradict  anything  which  appears 
on  the  docket  entries.  The  evidence  which  we  offer  of  the  employment  by  the 
President  of  this  professional  gentleman  for  the  purposes  indicated  is  entirely 
consistent  with  everything  that  appears  on  the  docket.  This  is  evidence,  not 
of  declarations,  as  the  senator  must  perceive,  but  of  acts,  because  it  is  well  set- 
tled, as  all  lawyers  know,  that  there  may  be  verbal  acts  as  well  as  other  bodily 
acts,  and  a  verbal  act  is  as  much  capable  of  proof  as  a  physical  act  of  a  different 
quality  or  character.  Now,  an  employment  for  a  particular  purpose  of  an  agent, 
whether  professional  or  otherwise,  is  an  act,  and  may  always  be  proved  vaJeat 
quantum  by  the  only  evidence  of  which  it  is  susceptible^  namely,  what  was  said 
by  the  party  in  order  to  create  that  employment,  and  that  is  what  we  desire  to 
prove  on  this  occasion. 

The  dismissal  of  General  Thomas,  which  has  been  referred  to,  and  which 
appears  on  the  docket,  was  entirely  subsequent  to  all  these  proceedings,  and  we 
shall  show  that  that  motion  was  made  and  that  dismissal  took  place  after  it  had 
become  certain  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Cox  and  his  associate  counsel  that  it  was  of 
no  use  further  to  follow  or  endeavor  to  follow  these  proceedings. 

As  to  the  argument,  or  rather  the  remarks,  which  have  been  addressed  by  the 
honorable  manager  to  the  Senate,  1  have  nothing  to  say.  It  does  not  seem  to 
me,  however  pertinent  the}'  may  be,  that  they  require  any  reply. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson".  IMr.  President,  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate  for 
a  moment,  and  I  must  ask  the  members  of  this  body  to  pass  u))on  what  we 
regard  to  be  the  real  question  involved  in  the  objection  which  has  been  inter- 
posed to  the  testimony  now  offered  by  the  counsel  for  the  respondent. 

On  the  21st  day  of  February,  1868,  the  President  of  the  United  States  issued 
an  order  removing  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  the  office  of  the  Secretary  for  the 
Department  of  War.  On  that  same  day  he  issued  a  letter  of  authority  to 
Lorenzo  Thomas  directing  him  to  take  cliarge  of  the  Department  of  War  and 
to  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  ad  ivterim.  The 
articles,  based  upon  a  violation  of  the  tenure-of  office  act,  are  founded  upon 
these  two  acts  of  the  President  on  the  21st  day  of  February.     The  counsel  for 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  603 

the  respondent  now  propose  to  break  the  force  of  those  acts  and  that  violation 
of  the  law  by  showing  that  on  the  22d  day  of  February,  after  the  fact,  the 
President  employed  an  attorney  to  raise  in  the  courts  the  question  of  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  tenure-of-office  act. 

Now,  1  submit  to  this  honorable  body  that  no  act,  no  declaration  of  the  Pres- 
ident made  after  the  fact  can  be  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  the 
intent  with  which  he  acted.  And  upon  this  question  of  intent  let  me  direct 
your  minds  to  this  consideration  :  the  issuing  of  the  orders  referred  to  consti- 
tute the  body  of  the  crime  with  which  the  President  stands  charged.  Did  he 
purposely  and  wilfully  issue  an  order  to  i-emove  the  Secretary  of  War  ?  Did 
he  purposely  and  wilfully  issue  an  order  appointing  Lorenzo  Thomas  Secretary 
of  War  ad  interim  ?  If  he  did  thus  issue  the  orders,  the  law  raises  the  pre- 
sumption of  guilty  intent,  and  no  act  done  by  the  President  after  these  orders 
were  issued  can  be  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  rebutting  that  intent.  The 
orders  themselves  were  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  tenure-of-office  act. 
Being  in  violation  of  that  act,  they  constitute  an  offence  under  and  by  virtue 
of  its  provisions,  and  the  oflFence  thus  being  established  must  stand  upon  the 
intent  which  controlled  the  action  of  the  President  at  the  time  that  he  issued 
the  orders.  If,  after  this  subject  was  introduced  into  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, the  President  became  alarmed  at  the  state  of  affairs,  and  concluded  that 
it  was  best  to  attempt  by  some  means  to  secure  a  decision  of  the  court  upon  the 
question  of  the  constitutionality  or  unconstitutionality  of  the  tenure-of-office 
act,  it  cannot  avail  him  in  this  case.  We  are  inquiring  as  to  the  intent  which 
controlled  and  directed  the  action  of  the  President  at  the  time  the  act  was 
done ;  and  if  we  succeed  in  establishing  that  intent,  either  by  proof  or  by  pre- 
sumption of  law,  no  subsequent  act  can  interfere  with  it  or  remove  from  him 
the  responsibility  which  the  law  places  upon  him  because  of  the  act  done. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  we  have  here  the  oft-repeated 
argument  that  the  crime  against  the  act  of  Congress  was  complete  by  the  papers 
drawn  and  delivered  by  the  President ;  that  the  law  presumes  that  those  papers 
were  made  with  the  intent  that  appears  on  their  face,  which,  it  is  alleged,  is  a 
violation  of  that  act ;  and  as  that  would  be  enough  in  an  indictment  against  the 
President  of  the  -United  States  to  affect  him  with  a  punishment,  in  the  discretion 
of  the  judge,  of  six  cents  fine,  so  by  peremptory  necessity  it  becomes  in  this 
court  a  complete  and  perfect  crime  under  the  Constitution,  which  must  require 
his  removal  from  office,  and  that  anything  beyond  the  intent  that  the  papers 
should  accomplish  what  they  tend  to  accomplish  is  not  the  subject  of  inquiry 
here.  Well,  it  is  the  subject  of  imputation  in  the  articles ;  it  is  the  subject  of 
the  imputation  in  the  arguments ;  it  is  the  subject,  and  the  only  subject,  that 
gives  gravity  to  this  trial,  and  there  was  a  purpose  of  injury  to  the  public  interest 
and  to  the  public  safety  in  this  proceeding. 

Now,  we  seek  to  put  this  prosecution  in  its  proper  place  on  this  point,  and  to 
show  that  our  intent  was  no  violence,  no  interruption  of  the  public  service,  no 
seizure  of  the  military  appropriations,  nothing  but  the  purpose  by  this  move- 
ment either  to  procure  Mr.  Stanton's  retirement,  as  was  desired,  or  to  have  the 
necessary  footing  for  judicial  proceedings.  If  thi.s  evidence  is  excluded,  then, 
when  you  come  to  the  summing  up  of  this  cause,  you  must  take  the  crime  of 
the  dimensions  and  of  the  completeness  that  is  here  avowed,  and  I  shall  be 
entitled  before  this  court  and  before  this  country  to  treat  this  accusation  as  if 
the  article  had  read  that  he  issued  that  order  for  Mr.  Stanton's  retirement,  and 
that  direc<^ion  to  General  Thomas  to  take  charge  ad  interim,  with  the  intent  and 
.  purpose  of  raising  a  case  for  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  between  the  Constitution  and  the  act  of  Congress  ;  and  if  such  an  article 
had  been  produced  by  the  House  of  Representatives  and  submitted  to  the  Senate 
it  would  have  been  a  laughing  stock  of  the  whole  country. 

The  gentlemen  shall  not  make  their  arguments  and  escape  from  them  at  the 


604  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

same  breath.  I  offer  this  evidence  to  prove  that  the  whole  purpose  and  intent 
of  the  Pre.xident  of  the  United  States,  in  his  action  in  reference  to  the  occupancy 
of  the  othce  of  Secretary  of  War,  had  this  extent  and  no  more :  to  obtain  a 
peaceable  delivery  of  that  trust  from  one  holding  it  at  pleasure  to  the  Chief 
Executive,  or,  in  the  absence  of  that  peaceable  retirement,  to  have  a  case  for 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  it  the  evidence  is 
excluded  you  must  treat  every  one  of  these  articles  as  if  the  intent  were  limited 
to  an  open  averment  in  the  articles  themselves  that  the  intent  of  the  President 
was  such  as  I  propose  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  desire,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  simply  to  read  an  authority 
to  settle  the  question  as  to  a  quo  tonrranto.  I  read  from  5  Wheatou's  Reports, 
pa^e  291,  the  case  of  Wallace  vs.  Anderson : 

EiTor  to  the  circuit  court  of  Ohio. 

This  was  an  iuformatiou  for  a  quo  warranto,  bvougjht  to  try  the  title  of  the  defenciant  to  the 
office  of  principal  surveyor  of  the  Virgiuia  military  bounty  lands  north  of  the  river  Ohio, 
and  between  the  rivers  Scioto  and  Little  Miami.  The  defendant  had  been  appointed  to  the 
office  by  the  State  of  Yirj^inia,  and  continued  to  exercise  its  duties  until  the  year  18J8,  during 
all  which  time  his  official  acts  were  recognized  by  the  United  States.  In  that  year  he  was 
removed  by  the  governor  and  council  of  Virginia,  and  the  plaintiff  appointed  in  his  place. 
The  ^yrit  was  brought,  by  consent  of  both  parties,  to  try  the  title  to  the  office,  waiving  all 
questions  of  form  and  of  jurisdiction.  *  *  *  *  »  » 

Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court,  that  a  writ  of  quo  warranto 
could  not  be  maintained  except  at  the  instance  of  the  government ;  and  as  this  writ  was  i.ssued 
by  a  private  individual,  without  the  authority  of  the  government,  it  could  not  be  sustained, 
whatever  might  be  the  right  of  the  prosecutor  or  of  the  person  claiming  to  exercise  the  office 
in  question.     The  iuformatiou  must  therefore  be  dismissed. 

Judgment  reversed. 

Mr.  CuuTis.  I  wish  to  remark,  Mr.  Chief  Jus'.ice,  in  reference  to  that  author- 
ity, that  it  is  undoubtedly  the  law  in  this  District,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  all 
the  States,  and  certainly  is  the  law  in  England,  that  there  can  be  no  writ  of  quo 
warranto,  or  information  in  the  nature  of  such  a  writ,  except  in  behalf  of  the 
public.  But  Avhat  otEcer  is  to  represent  the  public,  in  Avhose  name  the  informa- 
tion is  to  be  filed,  of  course  depends  upon  the  particular  statutes  applicable  to 
the  case.  These  statutes,  as  lawyers  know,  differ  in  the  different  States.  Under 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  all  proceedings  in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  circuit  and  district  courts,  are  taken  by  the  district  attorneys  in  their  own 
names  ;  all  proceedings  in  behalf  of  the  United  States  in  the  Supreme  Court  are 
taken  by  the  Attorney  General  in  his  name.  In  all  cases  of  these  public  pro- 
ceedings they  are  in  the  name  and  in  behalf  of  tbe  United  States.  What  partic- 
ular officer  shall  represent  the  United  States  depends  on  the  court  where  the 
proceeding  is  had.  Now,  in  reference  to  Mr.  Cox,  we  expect  to  show  an  appli- 
cation by  Mr.  Cox  to  the  district  attorney  to  obtain  his  signature  to  the  proper 
information  and  the  obtaining  of  that  signature. 

The  Chikf  Justick.  Senators,  the  counsel  for  the  President  offer  to  prove 
that  the  witness,  Mr.  Cox,  was  employed  professionally  by  the  President  in  the 
presence  of  General  Thomas  to  take  such  legal  proceedings  iu  the  case  that  had 
been  commenced  against  General  Thomas  as  would  be  effectual  to  raise  judicially 
the  question  of  Mr.  Stanton's  legal  right  to  continue  to  hold  the  office  of  Secre- 
tary for  the  Department  of  War  against  the  authority  of  the  President,  and  also 
in  reference  to  obtaining  a  writ  of  quo  toarravto  for  the  same  purpose,  and  they 
state  that  they  expect  to  follow  up  this  proof  by  evidence  of  what  was  done  by 
the  witness  in  pursuance  of  the  above  employment.  The  first  article  of  impeach- 
ment, which  may,  perhaps,  for  this  purpose,  be  taken  as  a  sample  of  the  rest, 
relating  to  the  same  subject,  after  charging  that  "Andrew  Johnson,  President  of 
the  United  States,"  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  laws,  issued  the  order 
which  has  been  so  frequently  read  for  the  removal  of  IMr.  Stanton,  proceeds : 

"  Which  order  was  miluwfully  issued  with  intent  then  and  thin'e  to  violate  the  act  entitled 
'An  act  regulatuig  the  tenure  of  certaiu  civil  offices,'  "  »fcc. 

The  article  charges,   first,  that  the  act  was  done  unlawfully,  and  then  it 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  605 

charges  that  it  was  done  with  intent  to  accomplish  a  certain  resnlt.  Tliat  intent 
the  President  denies,  and  it  is  to  establish  that  denial  by  pi-oof  that  the 
Chief  Justice  understands  this  evidence  now  to  be  offered.  It  is  evidence  of 
an  attempt  to  employ  counsel  by  the  President  in  the  presence  of  General 
Thomas.  It  is  the  evidence  so  far  of  a  fact ;  and  it  may  be  evidence  also  of 
declarations  connected  with  that  fact.  This  fact  and  these  declarations,  M^hich 
the  Cliief  Justice  understands  to  be  in  the  nature  of  facts,  he  thinks  ai'e  admis- 
sible in  evidence.  The  Senate  has  already,  i;pon  a  former  occasion,  decided  by 
a  sidemu  vote  that  evidence  of  the  declarations  by  the  President  to  General 
Thomas  and  by  General  Thomas  to  the  President,  after  this  order  was  sent  to 
Mr.  Stanton,  were  admissible  in  evidence.  It  has  also  admitted  evidence  of  the 
same  effect  on  the  22d,  offered  by  the  honorable  [managers.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  evidence  now  offered  comes  within  the  principle  of  those  decis- 
ions;  and,  as  the  Chief  Justice  has  already  had  occasion  to  say,  he  thinks  that 
the  principle  of  those  decisions  is  right,  and  that  they  are  decisions  which  are 
proper  to  be  made  by  the  Senate  sitting*  in  its  high  capacity  as  a  court  of 
impeachment,  and  composed,  as  it  is,  of  lawyers  and  gentlemen  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  business  transactions  of  life  and  entirely  competent  to  judge 
of  the  weight  of  any  evidence  which  may  be  submitted.  He  therefore 
holds  the  evidence  to  be  admissible,  but  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Senate, 
if  desired. 

Mr.  Drake.   I  ask  a  vote  upon  the  question,  sir,  by  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  29,  nays 
21 ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessen- 
den,  Fowler,  Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  Howe,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of 
Maine,  Morton,  Norton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Eoss,  Sauls- 
bury,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Sumner,  Truaibull,  Van  Winkle,  Viekers,  and  Willey — 29. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Cragin,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry, 
Harlan,  Howard,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Nye,  Pomeroy,  Kamsey,  Stewart,  Thayer, 
Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 21. 

Not  voting— Messrs.  Cole,  Conness,  Henderson,  and  Wade— 4. 

So  the  Senate  decided  the  evidence  offered  by  the  counsel  for  the  President 
to  be  admissible. 

Mr.  Curtis,  (to  the  witness.)  Will  you  now  answer  what  occurred  between 
the  President,  General  Thomas,  and  yourself,  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  In  referring  to  the  appointment  of  General  Thomas  as  Secretary  of  War 
ad  interim,  the  President  stated  that  Mr.  Stanton  had  refused  to  surrender  pos- 
session of  the  Department  to  General  Thomas,  and  that  he  desired  the  necessary 
legal  proceedings  to  be  instituted  without  delay  to  test  General  Thomas's  right 
to  the  office  and  to  put  him  in  possession.  I  inquired  if  the  Attorney  General 
was  to  act  in  the  matter,  and  whether  I  should  consult  with  him.  He  stated 
that  the  Attorney  General  had  been  very  much  occupied  in  the  Supreme  Court 
and  had  not  had  time  to  look  into  the  authorities,  but  that  he  would  be  glad  if  I 
would  confer  with  him.  I  promised  to  do  so,  and  stated  that  I  would  examine 
the  subject  immediately,  and  soon  after  took  leave. 

Q.  When  you  left  did  you  leave  the  President  and  General  Thomas  there  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  day  was  it  that  you  left  ? 

A.  I  do  not  suppose  I  was  there  more  than  twenty  minutes.  I  left  home 
about  five  o'clock,  I  think,  in  a  carriage.      I  was  admitted  immediately. 

Q.  State  now  anything  which  you  did  subsequently  in  consequence  of  this 
employment  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Does  the  presiding  officer  rule  that  anything  that  Mr. 
Cox  did  afterward  tends  to  show  the  President's  intent  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  considers  it  within  the  principle  of 
the  ruling  of  the  Senate. 


606  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  WiTXKSS.  After  reflecting  upon  the  subject,  supposing  tliat  the  Presi- 
dent's desire  was  to  have  the  questions  in  controversy 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  I  take  it  the  witness's  suppositions  are  not  to  go  in, 
are  they,  Mr.  President  1 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  State  what  was  done. 

Mr.  Curtis.  In  view  of  which  he  was  acting. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  never  heard  of  any  man's  supposition  being  put  in 
before. 

The  Witness.  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Now,  your  "conclusions!"  The  witness  is  asked 
what  did  he  do,  not  what  his  conclusinns  were. 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  is  an  act  for  a  lawyer,  a  pretty  important  act  for  a  lawyer, 
to  c(yme  to  a  conclusion. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  may  or  may  not  be. 

The  Witness.  I  am  stating  what  course  I  determined  to  pursue. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  What  the  witness  did  is  the  only  thing  inquired  about, 
and  I  wish  him  kept  to  that. 

Mr.  Curtis.  One  thing  was  that  he  came  to  a  conclusion,  I  want  to  know 
what  that  was. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  I  object  to  the  conclusion,  and  should  like  to  have  the 
ruling  of  the  presiding  officer  upon  that. 

The  Witness.  On  Monday 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  wish  to  have  that  settled. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  has  no  doubt  that  the  witness  may 
state  his  conclusions ;  but  he  will  put  the  question  to  the  Senate  if  desired. 
[After  a  pause,  to  the  witness.]     Go  on. 

The  Witness.  The  proceeding  by  giio  loarranto  being  a  very  tedious  one, 
which  could  not  be  brought  to  a  conclusion  within  even  a  year,  and  General 
Thomas  having  been  arrested  for  a  violation  of  the  tenure-of-office  act,  I  thought 
the  best  mode  of  proceeding  was  in  the  first  instance 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  object  now  to  his  thoughts.     Stop  somewhete. 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  State  your  conclusions. 

The  Witness.  I  determined  then  to  proceed  in  the  first  instance  in  the  case 
of  General  Thomas.  I  had  a  brief  interview  with  the  Attorney  General  on 
Monday  morning 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  To  proceed  how  ? 

A.  To  proceed  before  the  examining  judge  in  that  case,  (as  I  was  about  to 
explain,)  if  the  case  was  in  proper  condition  for  it,  by  applying  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  so  that  the  Supreme 
Court,  upon  the  return  of  tlie  writ,  could  examine  and  see  whether 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  These  are  not  acts  that  are  now  being  given,  Mr. 
President.  They  are  thoughts  and  conclusions  and  reasonings  of  this  party, 
what  he  would  do  if  something  else  happened.     I  object. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  supposes  that  the  counsel  employed 
by  the  President  may  state  what  course  he  pursued,  and  why  he  pursued  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  think  he  can  put  in  his  own  determinations  and 
reaffonings  'I 

The  Chief  Justice.  In  refennice  to  that  matter,  yes. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  would  like  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  upon  that. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  put  the  question  they  address 
to  the  witness  in  writing,  if  any  senator  desires  the  judgment  of  the  Senate;  if 
not,  the  witness  will  proceed. 

Mr.  Thayer.  1  ask 

]\Ir.  Howard.  I  ask  that  the  question  may  be  reduced  to  writing,  so  that  we 
may  'understand  it. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  607 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  reduce  their  question  to  writing. 

The  question  propounded  to  the  witness  by  the  counsel  for  the  respondent 
was  read,  as  follows  : 

State  what  couclusions  j'ou  arrived  at  as  to  the  proper  course  to  be  taken  to  accomplish  the 
iustniiitious  given  you  by  the  President. 

Mr.  ]\[anager  Butler.  That  is  not  what  I  objected  to,  Mr.  President,  and 
asked  to  have  a  ruling  upon.  Conclusions  I  did  not  object  to.  I  objected  to 
his  putting  in  his  thoughts  and  his  reasonings  by  which  he  came  to  his  conclu- 
sions. What  he  did  was  one  thing;  Avhat  he  thought,  and  Avhat  he  determined, 
and  what  he  wished,  and  what  he  hoped,  depend  so  much  on  the  state  ot  his 
mind,  whether  he  was  loyally  or  disloyally  disposed  to  the  government,  that  I 
do  not  think  it  competent 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  direct  the  witness  to  confine 
himself  to  the  conclusions  to  which  he  came  and  the  steps  which  he  took. 

The  Witness.  Having  come  to  the  conclusion,  then,  that  the  mo,-t  expedi- 
tious way  of  raising  the  questions  in  controversy  before  the  Supreme  Court  wag 
to  apply  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  case  General  Thomas's  case  was  in  proper 
shape  for  that,  I  had  a  brief  interview  with  the  Attorney  General  on  Monday 
morning,  and  this  course  met  with  his  approval.  I  then  proceeded  to  act  iu 
conjunction  with  the  counsel  whom  General  Thomas  had  engaged  to  act  in  his 
defence  in  the  first  instance. 

By  Mr,  Curtis  : 

Q.  Who  was  that  ? 

A.  Mr.  Merrick,  of  Washington.  In  order,  however,  to  procure  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  it  was  necessary 
that  the  commitment  should  be  made  by  a  court,  and  not  by  a  judge  at  cham- 
bers or  a  justice  of  the  peace ;  whereas  General  Thomas  had  been  arrested  and 
partially  examined  before  one  of  the  justices  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  at  chambers,  and  had  been  held  to  appear  for  further  exami- 
nation on  Wednesday,  the  26th  of  February.  .On  Wednesday,  the  26th,  the 
criminal  court  was  opened,  if  I  recollect  aright,  the  chief  justice  presiding,  and 
he  announced  that  he  would  then  proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  case  against 
General  Thomas. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  the  honor  to  object  now,  Mr.  President,  to  any 
proceedings  of  any  description  in  court  being  proved  other  than  by  the  record 
of  the  court. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  ask  the  witness  to  state  what  he  did  in  court.  It  may  have 
resulted  in  a  record,  or  it  may  not  have  resulted  in  a  record.  Until  we  know 
what  he  did  we  cannot  tell  whether  it  would  result  in  a  record  or  not.  We  do 
not  know  that  it  ever  got  into  a  court  where  there  could  be  a  record.  It  may 
have  been  an  ineffectual  attempt  to  get  it  into  a  court  where  there  could  be  a 
record. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Now,  I  call  the  attention  of  you,  Mr.  President  and 
the  Senators,  to  the  ingenuousness  of  that  speech.  The  witness  has  exactly 
testified  that  the  court  had  opened,  and  was  going  on  to  say  what  was  done  in 
court,  what  Chief  Justice  Cartter  announced  in  court,  in  the  criminal  court. 

Mr.  Curtis.  If  the  honorable  manager  will  give  way  for  a  moment,  I  say — 
I  intended  to  be  so  understood  before — that  here  was  the  chief  justice  of  the 
District  sitting  in  a  magisterial  capacity  ;  he  also,  as  Mr.  Cox  has  said,  was 
there  holding  the  criminal  court.  Now,  we  desire  to  prove  that  there  was  an 
effort  made  by  Mr.  Cox  to  get  this  case  transferred  from  the  chief  justice  in  his 
capacity  of  a  magistrate  into  and  before  the  criminal  court,  and  we  wish  to 
show  what  Mr.  Cox  did  in  order  to  obtain  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Now,  then,  I  again  say  that  we  have  found  that  we 
have  got  into  court  and  the  record  has  been  produced  here.     The  witness  him- 


608  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

self  has  said  that  Chief  Justice  Cartter  announced  that  he  was  going  to  open 
the  court.  Now,  if  the  Senate  want  to  tiy  Chief  Justice  Cartter,  and  whether 
he  has  done  rightly  or  wrongly,  I  only  desire  that  he  should  have  counsel  here 
to  defend  him.  1  never  before  heard  the  proceedings  of  a  court  or  a  magistrate 
sitting  in  a  case  undertaken  to  be  proved  io  a  tribunal  where  he  was  riot  on 
trial  by  the  declarations  of  the  counsel  of  the  criminal  who  got  beaten,  or  who 
succeeded,  either. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Sen- 
ate.    Counsel  will  please  reduce  the  question  to  writing. 

The  question  having  been  reduced  to  writing  was  read  by  the  Secretary,  as 
follows  : 

What  did  you  do  toward  getting  out  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  under  the  employment  of  the 
President  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  not  the  question  we  have  been  debating  at 
all.  I  wish  the  proprieties  of  the  place  would  allow  me  to  characterize  that  as 
I  think  it  ought  to  be  ;  but  that  Avas  not  the  question  we  were  debating.  I  made 
an  objection,  Mr.  President,  that  the  witness  should  not  state  what  took  place 
in  court,  and  now  they  put  a  general  question  which  evades  that. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Our  general  question  is  intended  to  draw  out  what  took  place 
in  court. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  we  object. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Very  well;  that  we  understand.  We  do  not  wish  to  be  char- 
acterized about  it,  though. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  question  is 
admissible 

Mr.  Grimes  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays  ;  and  they  were  ordered. 

Mr.  Howe.  I  wish  to  have  the  question  reported  again. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question,  as  follows  : 

What  did  you  do  towards  gettiug  out  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  under  the  employment  of  the 
President  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  wish  that  the  statement  of  counsel  may  be  added  to 
that,  "  this  being  intended  to  ask  what  the  witness  did  in  court." 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  covers  what  he  did  every  where,  which  includes  "in  court." 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  That  is  another  change. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  No  change  whatever.  The  question  has  been  read  three  times. 
It  is  intended  to  call  out  what  the  witness  did  toward  getting  out  a  writ  of 
habeas  corjms,  and  it  covers  what  he  did  in  court,  which  was  the  very  place  to 
do  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  If  any  change  or  addition  is  to  be  made  to  the  question  we  do 
not  wish  to  have  any  equivocation  about  the  word  "  court,"  because  that  may 
have  a  double  meaning.  What  was  done  or  attempted  to  be  done  was  before  the 
magistrate ;  we  meant  by  that  in  the  court. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  A  judge  or  magistrate  sitting  judicially,  which  is  the 
court  for  all  purposes. 

Mr.  Curtis.  "Sitting  judicially,"  but  not  as  a  court. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  once  more. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

What  did  you  do  toward  getting  out  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  under  the  employment  of  the 
President  ? 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  call  the  roll. 

My.  Sherman.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  T  desire  to  state  that  my  friend  from  Mis- 
souri [Mr.  llendersonj  is  sick  and  unable  to  attend  in  his  place  in  the  Senate 
to-day.     lie  wished  me  to  make  that  announcement. 

The  call  of  the  roll  having  been  concluded,  the  result  was  announced — yeas, 
27  ;  nays,  23 ;  as  follows  : 

YtAS — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  liuckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittlo,  Fossendcn,  Fowler, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  609 

Frelinghuysen,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morgan,  Norton' 
Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague, 
Sumner,  TninibuU,  Van  Winkle.  Vickers,  and  Willey — 27. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conklingj,  Conness,  Cragin,  Drake,  Edmunds, 
Ferry,  Harlan.  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Veruiout,  Nye,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Stew- 
art, Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 23. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Cole,  Corbett,  Henderson,  and  Wade — 4. 

So  the  Senate  decided  the  question  to  be  admissible. 

Mr.  CuRTfs,  (to  the  witness.)  State  now,  Mr.  Cox,  what  you  did  in  order  ta 
obtain  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  pursuant  to  the  instruction  of  the  President  ? 

A.  When  the  chief  justice  announced  that  he  would  proceed  as  an  examin- 
ing judge  to  investigate  the  case  of  Genei'al  Thomas,  and  not  as  holding  court, 
our  first  application  to  him  was  to  adjourn  the  investigation  into  the  criminal 
court  then  in  session,  in  order  to  have  the  action  of  that  court.  After  some 
little  discussion  this  request  was  refused.  Our  next  eflfort  was  to  have  General 
Thomas  committed  to  prison,  in  order  that  we  might  apply  to  that  court  for  a 
habeas  corpus,  and  upon  his  being  remanded  by  that  court,  if  that  should  be 
done,  we  might  follow  up  the  application  by  one  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States;  but  the  counsel  who  represented  the  government,  Messrs.  Car- 
penter and  Riddle,  applied  to  the  judge  then  for  a  postponement  of  the 
examination 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.  Does  this  also  include  what  was 
done  by  the  other  people  there  ? 

The  Chief  Ju.stice.  It  is  an  account  of  the  general  transaction,  as  the 
Chief  Justice  conceives,  and  comes  within  the  rule.     The  witness  will  proceed. 

The  Witness.  The  chief  justice  having  indicated  an  intention  to  postpone 
the  examination,  we  directed  General  Thomas  to  decline  giving  any  bail  for 
further  appearance,  and  to  surrender  himself  into  custody,  and  announce  to  the 
judge  that  he  was  in  custody,  and  then  presented  to  the  criminal  court  an  appli- 
cation for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  The  counsel  on  the  other  side  objected  that 
General  Thomas  could  not  put  himself  into  custody,  and  they  did  not  desire 
that  he  should  be  detained  in  custody.  The  chief  justice  also  declared  that  he 
would  not  restrain  General  Thomas  of  his  liberty,  and  would  not  hold  him  or 
allow  him  to  be  held  in  custody.  Supposing  that  he  must  either  be  committed 
or  finally  discharged,  we  then  claimed  that  he  be  discharged,  not  supposing  that 
the  counsel  on  the  other  side  would  consent  to  it,  and  supposing  that  would 
bring  about  his  commitment,  and  that  we  should  then  have  an  opportunity  of 
getting  a  habeas  corpus.  They  made  no  objection,  however,  to  his  final  dis- 
charge, and  accordingly  the  chief  justice  did  discharge  him.  Immediately  after 
that  I  went,  in  company  with  the  counsel  whom  he  had  employed,  Mr.  Merrick, 
to  the  President's  house,  and  reported  our  proceedings  and  the  result  to  the 
President.     He  then  urged  us  to  proceed 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stay  a  moment.  Shall  we  have  another  interview 
with  the  Presid'  nt  put  in,  Mr.  President  1 

The  Chief  Justice,  (to  the  witness.)  What  date  was  this  ? 

The  Witness.  On  the  26th,  immediately  after  the  proceeding  before  the 
judge. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  propose  to  show  that,  having  made  his  report  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  failure  of  this  attempt,  he  then  i-eceived  from  the  President  other 
instructions  upon  this  subject  to  follow  up  the  attempt  in  another  way. 
■    Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Do  I  understand — I  ask  for  information  of  the  coun- 
sel— that  this  interview  with  the  President  was  on  the  26th  ? 

The  Witness.  It  was. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Two  days  after  he  was  impeached  by  the  House  of. 
Representatives  ? 

Ml-.  Curtis.  Yes. 

Mr,  Manager  Bl'vgham    Two  daya  after  he  was  presented  here  % 
39  I  P 


610  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Yes. 

Mr,  Manager  Bixgham.  And  you  are  asking  for  the  President's  declarations 
after  he  was  arraigned  hero  for  this  crime  to  prove  his  innocence  1  We  ask  the 
vote  of  the  Senate  on  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  do  not  ask  for  declarations,  Mr.  Manager ;  we  ask  for  acts. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Acts  consisting  in  words  two  days  after  his  arraign- 
ment at  this  bar.     We  ask  the  vote  of  the  Senate  on  the  question. 

Mr.  Yates.  Mr.  President,  I  ask  for  the  vote  of  the  Senate  on  this  question. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  this  evidence  incompetent. 
The  declarations  of  parties 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  will  you  allow  us  to  say  a  word? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Certainly. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  If  it  is  to  turn  on  that  point,  which  has  not  been  discussed  in 
immediate  reference  to  this  question,  we  desire  to  be  heard.  The  offer  which 
the  Chief  Justice  and  senators  will  remember  was  read,  and  upon  which  the 
vote  of  the  Senate  was  taken  for  admission,  included  the  efforts  to  have  a  habeas 
corpus  proceeding  taken,  and  also  the  efforts  to  have  a  quo  tvarranto  The  rea- 
sons why,  and  the  time  at  which,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  the  habeas 
corpvs  effort  was  made,  and  its  termination,  have  been  given.  Thereupon  the 
efforts  were  attempted  at  the  quo  warranto.  It  is  in  reference  to  that  that  the 
President  gave  these  instructions.  We  suppose  it  is  covered  by  the  ruling 
already  made. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  A  single  word,  sir.  The  witness  has  informed  the 
court  that  it  was  not  done  before  because  such  a  proceeding  could  not  be  brought 
to  a  decision  under  a  year.  The  President  was  going  to  be  impeached  in  the 
course  of  ten  or  fifteen  days,  and  so  he  started  a  proceeding,  if  we  are  to  believe 
this  offer,  which  was  to  have  a  conclusion  a  year  hence  ! 

The  Chief  -Iustice.  The  Chief  Justice  may  have  misapprehended  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Senate ;  but  he  understands  their  ruling  to  be  in  substance  this  : 
that  acts  in  respect  to  the  attempt  and  intention  of  the  President  to  obtain  a  legal 
decision,  commencing  on  the  22d  of  February,  may  be  pursued  to  the  legitimate 
termination  of  that  particular  transaction  ;  and,  therefore,  the  Senate  has  ruled 
that  Mr.  Cox,  the  witness,  may  go  on  and  testify  until  that  particular  transac- 
tion came  to  a  close.  Now,  the  offer  is  to  prove  conversations  with  the  Presi- 
dent afrer  the  termination  of  that  effort  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  District  of 
Columbia.  The  Chief  Justice  do'  s  not  think  that  is  within  the  intent  of  the 
Senate ;  but  he  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Senate,  Senators,  you  who  are 
of  the  opinion  that  this  testimony  should  be  received  will  please  say  "ay;" 
those  of  the  contrary  opinion,  "no."  (l^utting  the  question.)  The  question  is 
determined  in  the  negative.     The  evidence  is  not  received, 

Mr.  Cur  lis,  (to  the  witness.)  Mr.  Cox,  after  you  had  reported  to  the  Presi- 
dent in  the  manner  you  have  already  stated,  did  you  take  any  further  step,  did 
you  do  any  further  act  in  reference  to  raising  the  question  of  the  constitutionality 
of  the  t(!nure-of-()ffice  act? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Wait.  If  what  the  President  did  himself,  after  he 
was  impeached,  after  the  26th  of  February,  cannot  be  given  in  evidence,  I  do 
not  see  that  what  his  counsel  did  for  him  may  be.     That  is  only  one  step  further. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  may  at  least  be  allowed  to  put  the  question,  Mr,  Chief 
Justice. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  question  Avas  put  and  I  objected  to  it. 

Mr.  EvAKTS,  It  has  not  been  rednc(,'d  to  writing. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  will  reduce  their  question 
to  writing. 

The  question  having  been  reduced  to  writing,  was  read  by  the  Secretary,  as 
follows  : 

After  you  bad  reported  to  the  President  the  result  of  your  eflforts  to  obtain  a  writ  of  habeas 


IMPEACHMENT    OB^    THE    PRESIDENT.  611 

eorptts,  did  you  do  any  act  in  pursuance  of  the  orip^inal  instructions  you  had  received  from 
the  President  on  Saturday,  to  test  the  right  of  Mr.  Stautou  to  continue  in  the  office;  and  if 
so,  state  what  the  acts  were  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  this  question  is  inadmis- 
sible within  the  last  vote  of  the  Senate  ;  but  will  put  the  question  to  the  Senate 
if  any  senator  desires  it. 

Mr.  DooLiTTLE.  Mr  Chief  Justice,  I  should  like  to  have  that  question  put 
to  the  Senate ;   I  think  it  a  different  one 

The  Chief  Justice.  No  debate  is  allowable.  Does  the  senator  desire  the 
vote  of  the  Senate  on  the  question  1 

Mr.  D(tOLlTTLB.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  qurstion  will  be  read  again. 

The  Secretary  read  the  last  question  put  by  the  counsel  for  the  respondent. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Now,  I  should  like  to  have  the  fifth  article  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  article  of  the  impeachment,  the  reading  of  which 
is  called  for  by  the  senator  from  Ohio,  will  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  article  five,  as  follows  : 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  hi^h  duties 
of  his  office  and  of  his  oath  of  office,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1868,  and  on  divers  other  days  aud  times  in  said  year,  before  the  2d  day  of  March,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  1868,  at  Washington,  in  tiie  District  of  Columbia,  did  unlawfully  conspire 
with  oue  Lorenzo  Thomas,  and  with  other  persons  to  the  House  of  Representatives  unknown, 
to  prevent  and  hinder  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  cer- 
tain civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1867,  and  in  pursuance  of  said  conspiracy  did  unlawfully 
attempt  to  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  then  aud  there  being  Secretary  for  the  Departmeat 
of  War,  duly  appointed  and  commissioned  under  the  laws  of  ihe  United  States,  from  holding 
said  office,  wheieby  the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  ot  the  United  States,  did  theu  and 
there  commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  inquire  of  the  counsel  for  the 
President  whether  they  understand  the  question  to  be  applicable  to  that  article  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  certainly  do. 

The  Chief  Justice  Is  it  asked  Avith  a  view  to  obtain  evidence  bearing 
upon  that  article  of  the  impeachment  1 

Mr.  EvARTs.  Yes,  any  article  whatever  that  indicates  as  part  of  his  intent 
or  within  any  time  alleged  to  be  with  an  unlawful  purpose.  We  propose  to  show 
the  lawful  and  peaceful  purpose. 

Mr.  How^E.  Mr.  President,  if  proper  I  should  like  to  have  the  first  question 
addressed  to  the  witness  on  the  stand  read  again. 

The  Chief  Justice  The  question  upon  which  the  ruling  has  just  taken 
place  ? 

Mr.  HowR.  No,  the  offer  to  prove.     I  should  like  to  have  tha-t  read  again. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  offer  which  was  made  by  the  counsel,  and  which 
the  Senate  admitted,  will  be  read  by  the  Secretary. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  Mr.  Cox  was  employed  professionally  by  the  President  in  the  pres- 
ence of  General  Thomas,  to  take  such  legal  proceedings  in  the  case  that  had  been  com- 
menced against  against  General  Thomas  as  would  be  effectual  to  raise  judicially  the  ques 
tion  of  Mr.  Stanton's  legal  right  to  continue  to  hold  the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War  agamst  the  authority  of  the  President,  and  also  in  reference  to  obtaining  a 
writ  of  qua  warranto  for  the  same  purpose,  and  we  shall  expect  to  follow  up  this  proof  by 
evidence  of  what  was  done  by  the  witness  in  pursuance  of  the  above  employment. 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  discussion  and  the  ruling  of  the  Chief  Justice  in 
respect  to  that  question  was  in  reference  to  the  first  article  of  the  impeachment. 
Nothing  had  been  said  about  the  fifth  article  in  the  discussion,  so  far  as  the 
Chief  Justice  recollects.  The  question  is  now  asked  with  reference  to  the  fifth 
article  and  the  intent  alleged  in  that  article  to  conspire.  Tne  Chief  Justice 
thinks  it  is  admissible  with  t'lat  view  under  the  ruling  upon  the  first  offer.  He 
will,  however,  put  the  question  to  the  Senate  if  any  senator  desires  it. 

Mr.  Con  NESS.  The  vote  of  the  Senate  is  asked. 


612  IMPEACHMENT  OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  Chfef  Justice.  The  senator  from  California  asks  for  the  vote  of  the 
Senate.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  question  ia  admissible, 
and  shall  be  put  to  the  witness,  will  say  ay 

Mr.  Howard  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays ;  and  they  were  ordered. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  fifth  article.  I  was  not  in  when 
it  was  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  fifth  article,  as  follows  : 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  hi^h  duties 
of  his  office,  and  of  his  oath  of  office,  on  the  21st  day  of  Febniarj,  in  the  j^ear  of  our  Lord 
1868,  and  on  divers  other  days  and  tin)es  in  said  year,  before  the  2d  day  of  March,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  1868,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  did  unlawfully  conspire 
with  one  Lorenzo  Thomas,  and  witli  other  persons  to  the  House  of  Representatives  unknown, 
to  prevent  and  hinder  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled,  "An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  cer- 
tain civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1867  ;  and  in  pursuance  of  said  conspiracy  did  unlawfully 
attem))t  to  prevent  Edwiu  M.  Stanton,  then  and  there  being  Secretary  for  the  Department  of 
War,  duly  appointed  and  commissioned  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  from  holding 
said  office,  whereby  the  said  Andrew  .Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and 
there  commit,  and  was  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

The  Chirf  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  now  read  the  question  proposed  to 
be  put  to  the  M'itness. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

After  you  had  reported  to  the  President  the  result  of  your  efforts  to  obtain  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  did  you  do  any  other  act  in  pursuance  of  the  original  instructions  you  had  received 
from  tlie  President  on  Saturday  to  test  the  right  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  continue  in  the  office ; 
and,  if  so,  state  what  the  acts  were? 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas,  27  ;  nays,  23  ;  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Bnckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessendeu,  Fowler, 
Grimes,  Hendricks,  Howe,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Murrill  of  Maine,  Morton.  Norton,  Patterson 
of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Sumner, 
Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey— 27. 

Na>s — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Conness,  Cragin,  Drake,  Edmunds, 
FeiTy,  Frelinj;hiiysen,  Harlan,  Howard,  Morgan,  Morn il  of  Vermont,  Nye,  Pomeroy,  Ram- 
sey, Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 23. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Cole,  Corbett,  Henderson,  and  Wade — 4. 

So  the  question  was  decided  to  be  admissible. 

Mr.  Curtis,  (to  the  witness.)     Now  you  may  state  it,  Mr.  Cox. 

The  Witness.  On  the  same  day  or  the  next,  I  forget  which,  I  prepared  an 
information  in  the  natui'e  of  a  quo  warranto.  I  think  a  delay  of  one  day 
occurred  in  the  effort  to  procure  certified  copies  of  General  Thomas's  commis- 
sioQ  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  of  the  order  to  Mr.  Stanton.  I  theii 
applied  to  the  district  attorney  to  sign  the  information  in  the  nature  of  a  quo 
warranto,  and  he  declined  to  do  so  without  instructions  or  a  request  from  the 
President  or  the  Attorney  General.  This  fact  was  communicated  to  the  Attor- 
ney General,  and  the  papers  were  sent  to  him.  We  also  gave  it  as  our  opinion 
to  him  that  it  would  not  be 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop.  We  object  to  the  opinion  given  by  these  gen- 
tlemen to  the  Attorney  General  as  tending  to  show  the  President's  motives  or 
intent. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  do  not  insist  upon  it  if  the  other  side  object.  (To  the  wit- 
ness.)    i  ou  can  now  proceed  to  state  anything  that  was  done  after  this  time. 

The  Witness.  Nothing  was  done  after  this  time  by  me.  The  papers  were 
return*  d  to  me  recently. 

Mr  Curtis,  (to  the  managers)  The  witness  is  now  yours,  gentlemen,  for 
cross-  examination . 

Mr.  Con  NESS.  I  move  that  the  Senate  take  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes.. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  at  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  Chief 
Justice  resumed  the  chair  aud  called  the  Senate  to  order. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  613 

Walter  S.  Cox  cross-examined. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  You  stated  tliat  you  had  been  practicing  law  here  in  Washington 
some  twenty  years  ? 

Answer,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Here  all  the  time  ? 

A.  Always. 

Q.  Was  any  other  counsel  associated  with  you  by  the  President  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q,  Were  you  counsel  in  that  case  for  the  President  or  for  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  I  considered  myself  counsel  for  the  President. 

Q.  Did  you  so  announce  yourself  to  Chief  Justice  Cartter  ? 

A.  I  did  not, 

Q.  Then  you  appeared  before  him  as  counsel  for  Thomas  1 

A.  I  did  in  that  proceeding. 

Q.  And  he  did  not  understand  in  any  way,  so  far  as  you  know,  that  you  were 
desiring  to  do  anything  there  on  behalf  of  the  President? 

A.  1  had  mentioned  the  fact  to  Judge  Cartter  pi-ivately,  out  of  court,  that  I 
had  been  sent  for  and  directed  to  take  charge  of  or  institute  proceedings. 

Q.  As  counsel  for  the  President  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  I  had  been  sent  for  by  the  President. 

Q.  But  did  you  tell  him  that  you  were  coming  into  his  court  as  counsel  for 
the  President  ? 

A,  I  did  not.  I  do  not  know  whether,  when  I  told  him,  1  had  then  deter- 
mined to  proceed  in  that  way. 

Q.  In  any  of  the  discussions  or  your  action  before  the  court  did  you  inform 
either  the  court  or  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  that  you  desired  to  have  the 
case  put  in  train  so  that  you  could  get  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Q.  Had  either  the  court  or  the  counsel  any  means  of  knowing  that  that  was 
your  purpose  or  the  President's  purpose,  so  far  as  you  were  concerned  ? 

A.  In  no  other  way  than  from  our  application  for  the  habeas  corpus  upon  our 
announcement  of  General  Thomas's  surrender  into  custody,  so  far  as  I  am 
advised. 

Q.  Nothing  only  what  they  might  infer  ? 

A.  Precisely. 

Q.  They  might  infer  that? 

A.  I  had  no  conversation  with  them  before  the  result. 

Q.  I  am  not  speaking  now  of  conversations  with  counsel  outside  of  the  court, 
but  I  am  speaking  of  proceedings  in  court  ? 

A.  Precisely  so. 

Q.  And  so  far  as  the  proceedings  in  court  were  concerned — and  I  ask  for 
nothing  else — there  was  no  intimation,  direct  or  indirect,  that  there  was  any 
wish  on  the  part  of  the  President  or  the  Attorney  General  to  make  a  case  to 
test  the  constitutionality  or  the  propriety  of  any  law  ? 

A.  There  was  none  that  I  remember  in  the  presence  of  the  judge  on  the  bench 
acting  at  that  time — no  other  than  private  information. 

Q.  Your  private  information  to  the  judge  I  have  not  asked  for.  Was  there 
any  in  court  to  the  counsel  who  appeared  on  the  other  side  ? 

A.  None. 

Q.  Then,  so  far  as  you  know,  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  could  only  treat 
this  as  a  question  of  the  rights  of  personal  liberty  of  Mr,  Thomas  ?  [No  answer.] 
Well,  sir,  it  being  your  desire  to  have  that  question  tested,  and  as  you,  appear- 
ing for  the  government,  could  do  so  by  consent  of  the  prosecutor,  why  did  you 
not  speak  to  the  prosecutor's  counsel  and  ask  to  have  it  put  in  train  for  that? 


614  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  Because  I  did  not  think  they  would  consent  to  it.     "We  did  not  desire  to 
let  them  know  our  object  at  the  time. 

Q.  Then,  as  I  understand  you,  you  concealed  your  object  from  them  ? 

A.  We  rather  did,  I  think. 

Q.  Then  they  acted  as  they  did  act,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  under  that 
concealment,  did  they  ? 

A.  They  seemed  to  divine  the  object  before  we  got  through  and  to  endeavor 
to  defeat  it. 

Q.  And  they  only  seemed  to  divine  it  from  the  course  they  took  ?     That  is 
the  only  reason  they  had  for  seeming  to  divine  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  you  prepared  the  papers  for  an  information  in  the  nature  of  a 
quo  warranto  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  what  day  was  that  ? 

A.  That  was  either  on  Wednesday,  the  26th,  or  the  next  day. 

Q.  The  26th  or  27th  of  February? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  it  was  the  27th. 

Q.  That  was  after  the  President  was  impeached  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  President  between  the  time  that  you  reported  to  him  and 
the  time  when  you  prepared  this  paper  1 

A.  I  did  not.     I  have  never  seen  him  since. 

Q.  You  prepared  that  paper  and  carried  it  to  the  Attorney  General,  did  you 
not  1 

A.  First,  to  the  disti'ict  attorney,  or  rather  I  spoke  to  him  without  presenting 
the  paper. 

Q.  You  spoke  to  him  and  he  said  he  must  have  some  order  from  the  Attorney 
General  or  the  President  before  he  could  act] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  went  to  the  Attorney  General  ? 

A.  I  did  not  go  in  person;   I  sent  the  papers. 

Q.  Did  you  send  a  note  with  them  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  You  simply  sent  the  papers  ? 

A.  I  sent  a  message,  either  written  or  verbal ;  I  do  not  know  which. 

Q.  By  whom  ? 

A.  I  think  by  Mr.  Merrick  or  Mr.  Bradley ;   I  cannot  say  which. 

Q.  What  Bradley  ? 

A.  Joseph  H. 

Q.  The  elder  or  younger? 

A.  The  elder.  | 

Q.  Was  he  concerned  in  the  matter  ?  * 

A.  He  appeared  in  court  with  us  merely  as  an  adviser,  as  a  friend  of  General 
Thomas. 

Q.   Joseph  H.  Bradley  appeared  in  the  courts  of  the  I^istrict  ? 

A.  He  did  not  appear  in  liis  character  as  attorney  of  the  court.     He  appeared 
in  person,  not  in  the  character  of  aa  attorney. 

Q.  He  appeared  in  person,  but  did  not  appear  as  an  attorney? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  ?  j 

A.  Nothing  to  the  court  or  to  the  judge. 

Q.  Is  this  Mr.  Bradley  the  same  man  who  was  disbarred  ? 

A.  The  same. 

Q.  So  that  he  could  not  appear.     Now,  since  you  sent  those  papers  to  the        | 
Attorney  General,  have  you  ever  received  them  back  ?  , 

1 
1 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  615 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  When? 

A.  A  few  days  ago. 

Q.  By  "  a  few  days  ago"  when  do  you  mean  ?  Since  you  have  been  sum- 
moned as  a  witness  1 

A.  I  think  not — just  before,  I  believe. 

Q.  Just  before  ? 

A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  Preparatory  to  your  being  summoned  as  a  witness  ] 

A.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q,  After  or  before  this  case  was  opened  :  before  or  after  the  trial  began  ? 

A.  After. 

Q.  How  long  after  ? 

A.  I  caauot  say.  I  think  it  was  four  or  five  days  ago,  as  near  as  I  can  come 
to  it. 

Q.  Had  you  any  communication  with  the  Attorney  General  about  them 
between  the  time  you  sent  them  and  the  time  when  you  received  them  ?  I  do 
not  ask  what  the  communication  was  ;  I  only  ask  the  fact  whetlier  you  had  any 
communication  ? 

A.  None  in  person. 

Q.  Had  you  any  in  writing  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  had  none  in  any  way,  if  you  had  none  either  in  person  or  in 
writing  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  through  Mr.  Merrick,  to  whom  it  was  more  convenient  to  aee 
him  than  it  was  to»me. 

Q.  So  you  can  only  know  by  what  Mr.  Merrick  said  ? 

A.  That  is  all. 

Q.  Of  that  I  will  not  ask  you;  you  say  the  papers  were  returned  to  you. 
Where  are  they  now  ? 

A.  I  have  tbem  in  my  pocket. 

Q.  "Were  they  not  returned  to  you  for  the  purpose  of  your  having  them  when 
you  should  be  called  as  a  witness  1     Do  you  not  so  understand  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  they  came  with  a  message. 

Q.  How  soon  before  you  were  summoned  1 

A.  Not  more  than  a  day  or  two,  I  think. 

Q.  On  the  same  day  1 

A.  I  think  a  day  or  two  before ;  I  am  not  very  sure. 

Q.  To  your  knowledge  have  those  papers,  up  to  the  hour  in  which  we  are 
speaking,  been  presented  to  any  judge  of  any  court  1 

A.  They  have  not.    . 

Q.  Up  to  the  hour  that  we  are  speaking  have  you  been  directed  either  by  the 
Attorney  General  or  the  President  to  present  that  application  to  any  judge  of 
any  court  1 

A.  The  papers  came  to  me  with  a  direction  that  Mr.  Merrick  and  myself 
should  use  our  discretion. 

Q.  They  came  with  a  written  message  ? 

A.  No ;  a  verbal  one,  through  Mr.  Merrick  to  me,  or  rather  it  was  communi- 
cated to  him,  and  by  him  to  me. 

Q.  But  Mr.  Merrick,  if  I  understand  you,  was  not  associated  with  you  in  this 
proceeding  as  counsel  for  the  President,  because  I  asked  you  if  the  President 
had  any  other  counsel  1 

A.  He  was  not,  as  I  understood  it ;  he  was  counsel  for  General  Thomas. 

Q.  Was  this  a  movement  on  the  part  of  General  Thomas  ? 

The  Witness.  Which  movement  ? 


616  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  This  movement  for  an  information  in  the  nature  of  a 
quo  warranto. 

A.  It  was  not.     It  would  be  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  on  his  relation 

Q.  On  the  relation  of  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  have  you  received  in  writing,  or  verbally  to  yourself,  any  direc- 
tions, either  from  the  President  or  the  Attorney  General,  to  file  those  papers  ] 

A.  No  positive  directions. 

Q.  Any  positive  or  unpositive  from  him  to  you  ? 

A.  Not  immediately. 

Q.  I  do  not  mean  through  Mr.  Merrick. 

A    The  only  communication  I  received  was  through  him. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  if  you  please,  state  from  whom  did  Mr.  Merrick  bring  you  a 
direction  or  communication  ? 

A.  From  the  Attorney  General. 

Q.  Who  1     Use  names,  if  you  please. 

A.  The  Attorney  General,  Mr.  Stanbery. 

Q.  Five  days  ago !  Mr.  Stanbery  resigned  as  Attorney  General,  we  have 
heard,  some  fortnight  ago  or  more.  How  could  it  come  to  you  from  the  Attor- 
ney General  five  days  -ago  ? 

A.  I  mean  Mr.  Stanbery. 

Q.  You  have  never  received  any  direction,  even  through  Mr.  Merrick,  from 
the  Attorney  General,  but  some  sort  of  direction  from  the  President's  counsel, 
through  Mr.  Merrick  ? 

A.  All  I  received  was 

Q.  Excuse  me;  just  hear  my  question.  • 

The  Witness.  Repeat  it,  if  you  please. 

Mr  Manager  Butlrr.  Have  you  received  any  communication,  through  Mr. 
Merrick  or  anybody  else,  from  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States — not 
the  resigned  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  ? 

A.  I  have  not  from  any  other  person  than  Mr.  Stanbery. 

Q.  And  you  have  not  received  any  from  him,  either  verbally  or  otherwise, 
while  he  was  Attorney  General  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  When  you  sent  in  the  papers  was  he  then  Attorney  General  1 

A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  Will  you  not  think,  and  make  yourself  certain  on  that  point  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  when  he  resigned.  If  you  can  inform  me  when  that  was, 
I  can  answer. 

Q.  And  the  resignation  made  no  difference  in  your  action,  so  that  you  do  not 
remember  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  he  could  have  resigned  at  that  time.  I  am  very  sure  that 
the  papers  were  sent  to  him  within  two  or  three  days  after  the  discharge  of 
General  Thomas. 

Q.  And  wei  e  returned  by  him  to  you  four  or  five  days  ago  ? 

A.  I  cannot  be  precise  as  to  that  —  five  or  six  days,  or  four  or  five  days. 

Q.  Long  after  he  resigned,  at  any  rate  ? 

A.  I  believe  it  was. 

Q.  So  that  when  you  told  us  that  Mr.  Merrick  had  brought  a  communication 
from  the  Attorney  General  you  meant  from  Mr.  Stanbery  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  you  have  received  no  communication  from  the  President  or  from  the 
Attorney  General  as  to  what  should  be  done  with  those  proceedings  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  so  far  as  you  know,  since  you  have  prepared  those  papers,  there 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  617 

has  not  been  any  direction  or  any  effort  from  the  President  or  the  Attorney 
General — leaving  out  Mr.  Stanbery,  for  he  is  not  Attorney  General  now — from 
the  President  or  tlie  Attorney  General  to  have  anything  done  with  tliose  papers  ? 

A.  There  has  been  no  direction,  and  there  has  been  no 

Q.  Communication  ? 

A.  Communication  to  me  since  the  papers  were  forwarded  to  the  office  of  the 
Attorney  General. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  we  will  go  to  the  court  for  a  moment.  Did  not  Mr.  Merrick  or 
yourself  make  the  motion  to  have  Mr.  Thomas  discharged  ? 

A.   We  did. 

Q.  Had  he  not  been  in  custody  under  his  recognizance  up  to  the  time  of  that 
motion  ? 

A.  We  claimed  that  he  was,  but  the  other  side  denied  it. 

Q.  And  to  settle  that  question  you  moved  his  discharge  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  was  granted  1 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Did  you  make  that  motion? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  So  that,  in  fact,  General  Thomas  was  discharged  bj'  the  court  from  cus- 
tody on  the  motion  of  the  President's  counsel  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  He  has  not  said  "from  custody." 

The  WiTNKSS.  Discharged  from  further  attendance. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Excuse  me.  If  he  was  not  discharged  from  custody,  what  was  he  dis- 
charged from? 

A.  He  was  discharged  from  the  complaint,  or  from  any  further  detention  or 
examination,  I  suppose. 

Q,  From  "further  detention?"  He  could  not  be  detained  without  being  in 
custody  ? 

A.  Not  very  well. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  thought  not,  when  I  was  interrupted  by  the  learned 
counsel  on  that  point. 

The  Witness.  He  was  discharged  from  the  complaint,  I  presume. 

Q.  Then  I  will  repeat  the  question  at  the  point  at  which  I  was  interrupted  : 
whether,  in  fact,  Mr.  Thomas  was  not  discharged  from  custody,  from  detention, 
from  further  being  held  to  answer  upon  that  complaint  by  the  motion  of  the 
President's  counsel? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  Now,  then,  was  that  information  signed  by  any  Attorney  General,  past, 
current,  or  to  come,  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

A.  It  was  not. 

Richard  T.  Merrick  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  In  Washington  city. 

Q.  And  what  is  your  profession  ? 

A.  I  am  a  lawyer  by  profession. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  profession  ? 

A.  Nineteen  or  twenty  years,  or  over.     In  1847  I  was  admitted. 

Q.  Were  you  employed  professionally  in  any  way  in  connection  with  the 
matter  of  General  Thomas  before  Chief  Justice  Cartter  ? 

A.  I  was  employed  by  General  Thomas  on  the  morning  of  the  22d  of  Feb- 
ruary, to  conduct  the  proceedings  instituted  against  him,  and  which  brought 
him  before  Chief  Justice  Cartter. 


618  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  In  the  course  of  that  day,  the  22d  of  February,  did  you  have  an  inter- 
view, in  company  with  General  Thomas  or  otherwise,  with  the  President  of  the 
United  States  1 

A.  Aftet-  the  action  taken  by  the  chiei  justice  on  the  case  sitting  at  cham- 
bers on  the  morning  of  the  22d,  at  the  instance  of  General  Thomas,  I  went  to 
the  President's  House  for  the  purpose  of  taking  to  the  President  the  affidavit 
and  the  bond  filed  by  General  Thomas,  and  communicating  to  the  President 
what  had  transpired  in  regard  to  the  case. 

Q.  Did  you  communicate  to  him  what  had  transpired  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  did  not  understand  what  the  question  was. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  question  is,  did  he  communicate  to  the  President  what  had 
transpired  in  regard  to  the  case  1 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  I  submit,  Mr.  President,  that  that  is  wholly  immate- 
rial. The  Senate  ruled  in  the  President's  acts  in  employing  Mr.  Cox  as  his 
counsel.  Those  were  his  acts.  But  what  communication  took  place  between 
him  and  Mr.  Merrick,  who  very  frankly  tells  us  here  he  was  employed  by  Gen- 
eral Thomas  as  his  counsel,  I  think  cannot  be  evidence. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  the  evidence  is  cumulative 
only,  and  is  admissible.  He  will  put  the  question  to  the  Senate  if  any  senator 
desires  it.     The  counsel  will  I'educe  their  question  to  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.   Upon  the  whole  1  will  not  press  the  objection. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  objection  is  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Curtis,  (to  the  witness.)  State  whether  you  communicated  to  the 
President,  in  the  presence  of  General  Thomas,  what  had  transpired  in  reference 
to  the  case  ? 

A.  My  recollection  is  that  I  communicated  what  had  transpired  to  the  Presi- 
dent in  the  absence  of  General  Thomas  in  the  first  instance,  for  he  was  not  at 
the  Executive  Mansion  when  I  called  ;  but  during  the  interview  General  Thomas 
arrived,  and  the  same  communication  was  again  made  in  a  general  conversation, 
in  which  the  Attorney  General,  Mr.  Stanbery,  the  President,  General  Thomas, 
and  myself  participated. 

Q.  I  wish  now  you  would  state  whether,  either  from  the  President  himself, 
or  from  the  Attorney  General  in  his  presence,  you  received  any  instructions  or 
sugges^tions  as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  you  in  reference  to  General 
Thomas's  case? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stay  a  moment. 

By  Mr.  Curtis: 
Q.  In  the  first  place  you  may  fix,  if  you  please,  the  hour  of  the  day  when 
this  occurred  on  the  22d. 

.The  Witness.  The  manager  signified  to  me  to  stop. 
Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  What  date  was  it? 
The  Witness.  The  22d  of  February. 

By  Mr.  Curtis: 

Q.  Now,  the  hour  of  the  day,  as  near  as  you  can  fix  it? 

A.  I  think  the  proceedings  before  Chief  Justice  Cartter  at  chambers  took 
place  between  10  and  hiilf-past  10  o'clock;  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  about 
10  o'clock.  Immediately  aft(^r  they  terminated,  (and  they  extended  through 
only  a  very  brief  period,  for  it  Avas  simply  to  give  a  bond,)  I  ordered  copies  of 
the  papers  to  be  made,  and  as  soon  as  tliey  were  raad(^  I  took  them  to  the 
Fxecutiv(!  Mansion.  I  think  it  occupied  probably  from  30  minutes  to  an  hour 
to  make  the  copies,  and  my  impression  is  that  1  reached  the  Executive  Mansion 
by  noon. 

Q.  Now,  you  can  answer  the  residue  of  the  question,  whether  you  received 
either  from  the  President  himself,  or  the  Attorney  General  in  the  presence  of 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT.  619 

the  President,  any  directions  or  suggestions  as  to  the  course  to  be  taken  by  yeu 
as  counsel  in  that  case. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlbr.  Do  you  ask  now  for  the  conversations? 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  ask  for  suggestions  or  directions  to  this  gentleman.  I  do  not 
go  outside  of  those. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  think  those  are  conversations,  and  I  do  not  think 
they  can  be  put  in.  This  was  not  employing,  as  was  the  other  case,  a  counsel 
to  do  anything  ;  but  it  was  giving  directions  as  to  how  Thomas's  counsel  should 
try  his  case. 

Mr.  Curtis.  1  suppose  it  depends  entirely  upon  what  was  said.  They 
might  amount  to  verbal  acts,  as  they  are  called  in  the  books ;  and  if  this  gentle- 
man so  received  and  acted  upon  them  1  suppose  they  then  pass  out  of  the  range 
of  mere  talk  or  declarations.  The  question  is  whether  he  received  instructions 
or  suggestions  from  the  President  or  the  Attorney  General. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  difficulty  is  this  :  it  is 
not  a  mere  question  of  the  difference  between  acts  and  declarations,  although 
declarations  make  it  a  remove  further  off;  but  my  proposition  is  that  the  Presi- 
dent's acts  in  directing  General  Thomas's  counsel  to  defend  General  Thomas, 
his  client,  not  being  employed  by  him,  the  President,  cannot  be  evidence, 
whether  regarded  as  acts  or  declarations.     That  is  all. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  does  not  follow  that  these  instructions  were  to  defend  Mr. 
Thomas.  The  point  of  the  inquiry  is  that  the  instructions  were  to  make  inves- 
tigations in  this  proceeding  whether  steps  could  be  taken  in  behalf  of  the  Presi- 
dent. You  cannot  anticipate  what  the  answer  is  to  be  by  the  objections.  We 
offer  to  show  that  the  Attorney  General,  in  the  presence  of  the  President,  after 
this  report  of  the  situation  that  was  opened  by  the  existence  of  this  case  of 
General  Thomas,  gave  certain  directions  to  this  gentleman  of  the  profession  in 
reference  to  grafting  upon  that  case  the  means  of  having  a  habeas  corpus. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  I  do  not  propose  to  argue  it.  The  statement  of  it  is 
enough.  General  Thomas's  lawyer  goes  to  the  President ;  the  President  has 
no  more  right  to  direct  General  Thomas's  lawyer  than  he  has  to  direct  me  ;  and 
thereupon  they  do  not  offer  even  the  declarations  of  the  President,  but  they  offer 
now  the  declarations  of  the  President's  lawyer.  Attorney  General  Stanbery,  and 
you  are  asked  to  allow  his  counsel  to  put  in  his  declarations  as  part  of  this 
defence.     If  that  is  allowed  to  go  in  no  argument  on  earth  can  be  of  any  avail. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  their  question  to  writing. 

(The  offer  of  proof  was  reduced  to  writing  and  sent  to  the  desk.) 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  propounded  by  the 
counsel  for  the  President. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  about  the  hour  of  12,  noon,  on  the  22d  of  February,  upon  the  first 
commuuicatiou  to  the  President  of  the  situation  of  General  Thomas's  case,  the  President, 
or  the  Attorney  General  in  his  presence,  gave  the  attorneys  certain  directions  as  to  obtaining 
a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  for  the  purpose  of  testing  judicially  the  right  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  con- 
tinue to  hold  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  against  the  authority  of  the  President. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  this  evidence  admissible  within 
the  rule  already  determined  by  the  Senate,  He  will  submit  the  question  to  the 
Senate  if  any  senator  desires  it.  [After  a  pause.]  The  witness  may  answer  the 
question. 

The  Witness.  I  should  like  to  have  the  question  read. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  question  is,  whether  the  President,  or  the  Attorney  General 
in  his  presence,  gave  you  any  instructions  in  respect  to  proceedings  to  obtain  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  test  the  right  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  hold  the  office  of  Sec- 
retar}'  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  President  % 

A.  The  Attorney  General,  upon  learning  from  me  the  situation  of  the  case, 
asked  if  it  was  possible  in  any  way  to  get  it  to  the  Supreme  v^ourt  immediately* 


620  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT. 

I  told  him  I  was  nf)t  prepared  to  answer  that  question.  He  then  said  :  "  Look, 
at  it  and  see  whether  you  can  take  it  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  immediately 
upon  a  habeas  corpus  and  have  a  decision  from  that  tribunal."  I  told  him  I 
would. 

Q.  Subsequent  to  this  time  did  you  come  in  communication  with  any  gentle- 
man acting  as  counsel  for  the  President  in  reference  to  this  matter,  and  who 
was  that  gentleman,  if  any  ? 

Mr.  JoHNSOA'.  What  is  the  question?     We  did  not  hear  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  question  is,  whether,  subsequent  to  this  time,  he  came  into 
communication  with  any  other  legal  gentleman  acting  as  counsel  for  the  Presi- 
dent, and  who  he  was 't 

A.  I  examined  the  question  as  requested  by  the  Attorney  (Tcneral,  and  on 
the  evening  or  afternoon  of  the  22d,  and  I  think  within  two  or  three  hours  after 
I  had  seen  him,  I  wrote  him  a  note. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  will  not  have  the  contents  of  that  note  unless  it 
is  ruled  in. 

The  Witness.  I  paused,  sir,  that  you  might  object. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  Stating  the  result  of  that  examination  ? 

A.  Stating  the  result  of  that  examination. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Whatever  was  in  that  note  you  will  not  state  it. 

The  Witness.  That  was  all  the  contents. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Nothing  will  be  stated  unless  the   Senate  rules  it  in. 

By  Mr.  Curtis: 

Q.  You  wrote  him  a  note  on  this  subject? 

A.  I  wrote  him  a  note  on  this  subject,  and  on  the  following  Monday  or  Tues- 
day, this  being  Saturday,  I  met  Mr.  Cox,  who  was  the  counsel  of  the  Presi- 
dent, as  I  understood,  and  in  consultation  with  him  I  communicated  to  him  the 
conclusions  to  which  I  had  arrived  in  the  course  of  my  examination  on  the 
Saturday  previous,  and  we,  havinu;  come  to  the  same  conclusion,  agreed  to  con- 
duct the  case  together  in  harmony  with  a  view  of  accomplishing  the  contem- 
plated result  of  getting  it  to  the  Supreme  Court  on  a  habeas  corpus. 

Q.  State  now  anything  which  you  and  Mr.  Cox  did  for  the  purpose  of 
accomplishing  that  result. 

A.  Having  formed  our  plan  of  proceeding,  we  went  into  court  on  the  day  on 
which,  according  to  the  bond,  General  Thomas  was  to  appear  before  Judge 
Cartter  at  chambers. 

Mr.  JoH.\.soN.  What  day  was  that? 

The  Witness.  That  was,  I  think,  on  Wednesday,  the  26th,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken.     Shall  I  state  what  transpired? 

Mr.  Curtis.  Yes,  so  far  as  it  regards  your  acts. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  1  respectfully  submit  once  again,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  acts  of  General  Thomas's  counsel,  under  the  direction  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, after  the  Pre.sident  was  impeached,  cannot  be  put  in  evidence. 

The  Witness,  (to  counsel.)   Will  you  allow  me  to  make  a  correction? 

Mr.  Curtis  and  Mr.  Evarts.  Certainly. 

The  Witness.  You  asked  when  I  next  came  in  contact  with  any  one  repre- 
senting the  President.  I  should  have  stated  that  on  Tuesday  night,  by 
appointment,  I  had  an  interview  with  the  Attorney  General  upon  the  subject  of 
this  case,  and  the  proceedings  to  be  taken  on  the  following  day. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  see  that  that  alters  the  question,  which  I 
desire  may  be  reduced  to  writing,  if  it  is  ever  to  be  done,  before  I  argue  it ;  because 
1  have  argued  one  or  two  questions  here,  and  then  another  question  appeared 
when  it  came  to  be  reduced  to  writing. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  G21 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  their  question  to 
writing. 

The  qupstion  was  reduced  to  writing,  and  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  follows  : 

What,  if  anything^,  did  you  and  Mr.  Cox  do  iu  reference  to  accomplishing  the  result  you 
have  spoken  of? 

Mr.  Manager  Botler.  Does  that  include  what  was  done  in  court? 

Mr.  Curtis  It  includes  what  was  done  by  the  chief  justice  as  a  magistrate 
or  iu  court,  if  it  is  so  termed. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  suppose  that  that  must  be  termed  a  court  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  the  same  question  which  was  put  to  the  other  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No;  it  is  another  person. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Does  the  manager  object  to  the  question  as  proposed? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sii-. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  it  is  competent,  but  he  will 
put  the  question  to  the  Senate  if  any  senator  desires  it.  (After  a  pause,  to  the 
witness.)     Answer  the  question. 

The  Witness,  (to  the  Secretary.)  Read  me  the  question  ? 

The  Secretary  read  the  question. 

The  Witness.  To  answer  that  question  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  state 
what  transpired  befoi-e  the  judge  at  chambers  and  in  court  on  Wednesday  ;  for 
all  that  we  did  was  done  to  accomplish  that  result. 

Mr.  Curtis    Go  on. 

The  Witness.  Shall  I  state  it  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  Yes.  • 

A.  We  went  into  the  room  in  the  City  Hall  in  which  the  criminar  court  holds 
its  session,  in  the  morning.  Chief  Justice  Cartter  was  then  holding  the  term  of 
the  criminal  court,  and  the  criminal  court  was  regularly  opened.  After  some 
business  in  the  criminal  court  was  discharged,  the  chief  justice  announced  that 
he  was  ready  to  hear  the  case  of  General  Thomas.  The  question  was  then  sug- 
gested whether  it  was  to  be  heard  in  chambers  or  before  the  court.  The  chief 
justice  said  he  would  hear  it  as  at  chambers,  the  criminal  court  not  having  then 
been  adjourned.  The  case  was  thereupon  called  up.  The  counsel  appearing 
for  Mr.  .^tanton  or  for  the  government,  Messrs.  Carpenter  and  Riddle,  moved 
that  the  case  be  continued  or  postponed  until  the  following  day,  on  the  ground 
of  the  absence  of  one  or  two  witnesses,  I  think,  and  on  the  additional  plea  of 
Mr.  Carpenter's  indisposition.  To  that  motion,  after  consultation  with  my  asso- 
ciate, Mr.  Cox,  and  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Bradley,  who  appeared  in  person  as  advisory 
counsel  for  General  Thomas,  I  rose  and  objected  to  the  postponeim^nt,  stating 
that  I  was  constrained  to  object,  notwithstanding  the  plea  of  personal  indispo- 
sition, to  which  I  always  yielded;  but  I  objected  now  for  the  reason  that  this 
was  a  case  involving  a  question  of  great  public  interest,  which  the  harmonious 
action  of  the  government  rendered  it  necessary  should  be  speedily  determined. 
I  elaborated  the  view.  Mr.  Carpenter  replied,  representing  that  there  could  be 
no  detiiment  to  the  public  service,  and  he  earnestly  urged  the  court  to  a  post- 
ponement. The  chief  justice  thereupon  said — I  think  he  remarked  that  it  was 
the  first  time  he  knew  of  a  case  iu  which  the  plea  of  a  personal  indisposition  of 
counsel  was  not  acceded  to  by  the  other  side;  that  it  was  generally  sufficient, 
and  went  on  to  remark  upon  the  motion  further  in  such  a  munner  that  I  con- 
cluded he  would  continue  the  case  until  the  following  day;  and  as  soon  as  we 
saw  that  he  would  contiime  the  case  until  the  following  day  we  brought  forward 
a  motion  that  it  be  then  adjourned  from  before  the  chief  justice  at  chambers  to 
the  chief  justice  holding  the  criminal  court.  That  question  was  argued  by 
counsel  and  overruled  by  the  court. 

Mr.  Johnson.  By  the  court? 

The  Witness.  By  the  judge  at  chambers,  not  by  the  court.  I  then  sub- 
mitted to  the  judge 


622  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  I  wish  it  simply  understood,  that  I  may- 
clear  my  t^kirts  of  this  matter,  that  tliis  all  goes  in  under  our  objection,  and  under 
the  ruling  of  the  presiding  officer. 

The  Chirf  Justice.  It  goes  in  under  the  direction  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.     (I'o  the  witness.)  Proceed,  sir. 

The  Witness.  We  then  announced  to  the  judge  that  General  Thomas's  bail 
had  surrendered  him,  or  that  he  was  in  custody  of  the  marshal,  and  the  marshal 
was  advancing  toward  him  at  the  time.  I  think  that  Mr.  Bradley  or  Mr.  Cox 
handed  me,  while  on  my  feet,  and  while  I  was  making  that  announcement,  the 
petition  for  a  habeas  corpus,  which  I  then  presented  to  the  criminal  court,  which 
having  opened  in  the  morning,  had  not  yet  adjourned,  and  over  which  Chief 
Justice  Cartter  was  presiding. ,  I  presented  the  habeas  corpus  to  the  criminal 
court. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  petition  ? 

The  Witness.  The  petition  for  a  habeas  corpus  to  the  criminal  court,  repre- 
senting that  General  Thomas  was  in  custody  of  the  marshal,  and  asked  that  it 
should  be  heard. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Was  that  petition  in  writing? 

The  Witness.  That  petition  was  in  writing,  I  believe.  As  I  said,  it  was 
handed  to  me  by  one  of  my  associates,  and  if  my  recollection  serves  me  ai-ight  I 
have  seen  the  petition  since,  and  it  was  not  signed.  When  handed  to  me  Gen- 
eral Thomas  and  Mr.  Bradley  were  sitting  immediately  behind  me,  and  after 
reading  it  I  laid  it  down,  and  I  believe  it  was  taken  up  by  some  of  the  reporters 
and  not  regained  for  half  an  hour.         * 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  Well,  sir,  after  you  had  read  it  what  occurred? 

A.  After  I  had  read  it  a  discussion  arose  upon  the  propriety  of  the  petition 
and  the  regularity  of  the  time,  in  regard  to  the  time  of  its  presentation.  The 
counsel  upon  the  other  side  contended  that  (general  Thomas  was  not  in  custody, 
and  that  it  was  a  remarkable  case — I  remember  that  expression,  I  think,  of  Mr. 
Carpenter's — for  an  accused  party  to  insist  upon  ])Utting  himself  inj.il  or  in 
custody.  We  contended  that  he  was  in  custody.  The  chief  justice  ruled  that 
he  was  not  in  custody  at  all,  and  that  he  did  not  purpose  to  put  him  in  custody. 

The  counsel  upon  the  other  side  further  stated  that  they  desired  neither  that 
he  should  be  put  in  custody  nor  that  he  should  give  bond,  because  they  were 
certain,  from  his  character  and  position,  that  he  would  be  here  to  answer  any 
charge  that  might  be  brought  against  him.  The  chief  justice  replied  that,  in 
view  of  the  statements  made  by  ihe  counsel,  he  should  neither  put  him  in  cus- 
tody nor  demand  bond,  and  was  himself  satisfied  there  was  no  necessity  for  pur- 
suing either  course.  We  then  remarked,  "  If  he  is  not  in  custody  and  not  under 
bond  he  is  discharged."  I  think  some  one  said,  "He  is  then  discharged;"  and 
thereupon,  in  order  that  there  might  be  a  decision  in  reference  to  the  alternatives 
presented  of  his  being  placed  in  custody  or  discharged  upon  tlie  record,  we 
moved  for  his  discharge  iu  order  to  bring  up  the  question  otHcially  of  his  com- 
mitment.    He  was  thereupon  discharged. 

Mr.  CuKris.  I  believe  that  is  all  we  wish  to  examine  Mr.  Merrick  upon. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  Were  you  counsel,  Mr.  Merrick,  for  Surratt  ? 
A.   I  was,  sir. 
Q.  Was  Mr.  Cox  ? 
A.   \li'  was  not. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Bradley,  who  was  advisory  counsel  in  this  proceeding? 
A.  He  was. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  Executive  Mansion  that  morning,  Thotnas  was  not 
there,  you  tell  us  ? 


I 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  623 

A.  I  think  not.     That  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  Did  yon  learn  whether  he  had  been  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  did  or  not.  Had  I  so  learned  I  probably 
should  have  recollected  it. 

Q.  Did  you  not  learn  that  Thomas  was  then  over  at  the  War  Department? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did,  and  think  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  3'on  not  learn  when  he  returned  that  he  had  come  from  the  War 
Department  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  not  tax  your  want  of  recollection  any  further. 
[Laughter.] 

Edwin  0.  Perrin  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  EvARTS  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

Answer.  I  reside  on  Long  Island,  near  Jamaica. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  resident  of  that  region  ? 

A.  I  have  been  a  resident  of  Long  Island  over  ten  years. 

Q.  Previous  to  that  time  where  had  you  resided  ? 

A.  Memphis,  Tennessee. 

Q.  Are  you  personally  acquainted  with  the  President  of  the  United  States? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  And  how  long  a  time  have  you  been  so  personally  acquainted  with  him? 

A.  I  knew  Mr.  Johnson  in  Tennessee  for  several  years  before  I  left  the  State, 
having  met  him  more  particularly  upon  the  stump  in  political  campaigns,  I  being 
a  whig  and  he  a  democrat. 

Q.  And  has  that  acquaintance  continued  until  the  present  time  ? 

A.  It  has. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  city  of  Washington  in  the  month  of  February  last  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  for  what  period  of  time  ? 

A.  I  came  here,  I  think,  about  the  1st  day  of  February,  or  near  that  time, 
and  remain(  d  until  about  the  1st  of  March  or  last  of  February. 

Q.  During  that  time  were  you  at  a  hotel  or  at  a  private  residence  1 

A.  At  a  private  boarding  house. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  on  the 
21st  of  February  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Alone,  or  in  company  with  whom  1 

A.  In  company  with  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Q.  Who  was  he  ? 

A.  Mr.  v^elye,  of  Rochester,  New  York. 

Q.  How  did  it  happen  that  you  made  this  visit? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  pray  judgment  on  that. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  It  is  merely  introductory.  It  is  nothing  material.  You  have 
no  ground  to  object,  as  the  answer  will  show. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well. 

The  Witness.  Mr.  Selye  said  that  while  he  knew  the  President  he  never 
had  been  formally  presented  to  him  ;  and  understanding  that  I  was  a  friend  of 
the  President,  and  well  acquainted  with  him,  he  asked  me  if  I  would  not  go  up 
with  him  to  the  President's  and  introduce  him. 
By  Mr.  Evarts: 

Q.  When  did  this  occur  ? 

A.  On  the  20th. 

Q.  The  day  before? 

A.  The  day  before — on  the  20th. 


624  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  Your  vi?it,  then,  on  the  21st  was  on  tbis  inducement? 

A.  I  made  the  appointment  for  the  next  day.  I  informed  Mr.  S  lye  that  it 
was  cabinet  day,  and  it  would  be  no  use  to  go  until  after  two  o'clock,  as  we 
probably  would  not  be  permitted  to  enter,  and  appointed  two  o'clock,  at  his 
rooms  in  Twelfth  street,  to  meet  him  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  You  went  there,  and  you  took  up  Mr.  Selye  ? 

A.  I  went  to  Mr.  Selye's  room.  He  called  a  carriage,  and  we  got  in  and 
drove  to  the  President's  house,  a  little  after  two  o'clock,  or  perhaps  nearly  three. 
I  did  not  note  the  hour. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  difficulty  in  getting  in  1 

A.  AVe  had.  Mr.  Kershard,  the  usher  at  the  door,  when  I  handed  him  Mr. 
Selye's  card  and  mine,  said  that  the  President  had  some  of  bis  cabinet  with 
him  yet,  and  no  one  would  be  admitted  I  told  him  I  wished  that  he  would  go 
in  and  say  to  the  President  or  say  to  Colonel  Moore,  with  my  compliments 

Mr.  ^lanager  Butler.  Excuse  me;  are  you  going  to  put  in  Colonel  Moore? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  no  matter;  we  are  only  getting  at  the  fact  how  he  got  in. 
(To  the  witness.)  Was  the  fact  that  j\Ir.  Selye  was  a  member  of  Congress 
mentioned  1 

A.  That  was  mentioned,  that  Mr.  Selye  was  a  member  of  Congress. 

Q.  And  so  you  got  in? 

A.  And  so  we  got  in. 

Q.  Then  you  went  up-stairs  ;  and  were  you  immediately  admitted,  or  other- 
wise ? 

A.  We  were  up-stairs  then  when  this  took  place ;  in  the  ante-room  near  the 
President's  reception  room. 

Q.  Very  well ;  then  you  went  in  after  a  while  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  we  went  in. 

Q.   Was  the  President  alone  when  you  went  in  ? 

A.  He  was  alone. 

Q.  And  did  you  introduce  Mr.  Selye  ? 

A.  I  introduced  Mr.  Selye. 

Q.  As  a  member  of  Congress  ? 

A.  As  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Rochester  district. 

Q.  Before  this  time  had  you  heard  that  any  order  for  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Stanton  had  been  made  ? 

A.  I  had  heard  nothing  of  it. 

Q.  Nor  had  Mr.  Selye,  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

A.  He  had  not.  I  found  him  lying  down  when  I  got  to  his  room,  about  two 
o'clock,  and  he  complained  of  being  unwell. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  know,  he  had  heard  nothing  of  it  ? 

A.  So  far  as  1  know,  he  had  heard  nothing  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  then  hear  from  the  President  of  the  removal  of  i\[r.  Stanton  ? 

Mr.  Manager  liuTLKR.  Stay  a  moment.  We  feel  it  our  duty  to  object  to  the 
statement  of  the  President  to  this  person  or  Mr.  Selye  or  anybody  else,  declara- 
tions made  to  parties  in  the  country  generally.  There  can  be  no  end  to  this 
kind  of  evidence ;  everybody  may  be  brought  here.  Wliere  are  we  to  stop,  if 
there  is  to  be  any  stop  ?  If  not,  the  time  of  the  country  will  be  consumed  in 
hearing  every  conversation  between  the  President  and  every  person  that  he 
chooses  to  introduce, 

Mr.  EvARTS.  If  the  evidence  is  proper  the  time  to  have  considered  about  the 
public  interest  was  when  the  trial  was  comm(!nced  or  promoted.  We  are  not  to 
be  excluded  from  a  defence  because  it  takes  time  to  put  it  in.  Of  course  it 
would  be  more  convenient  to  stop  a  cause  at  the  end  of  the  prosecution's  case  and 
save  the  time  of  the  country  or  of  the  court.  We  are  reducnig  to  writing  our 
offer. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  question  simply  is  what* was  said  between  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  625 

President  and  Mr.  Selye  cantl  Mr.  Perrin.     That  is  the  question  that  I  had  the 
honor  to  object  to. 

'^h•.  EvARTS.  AVe  are  reducing  it  to  form  in  order  that  it  may  be  passed 
upon. 

The  offer,  having  been  reduced  to  Avriting,  was  read  by  the  Secretary,  as 
follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  the  Presideut  then  stated  that  he  had  issued  an  order  for  the  removal 
of  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  euiploynieiit  of  General  Thomas  to  perform  the  duties  «(/  interim; 
that  thereupon  Mr.  Perrin  said,  "  Supposiuj^  Mr.  Stanton  should  ojipose  the  order;"  the 
President  replied,  "There  is  no  daiifrer  of  that,  for  General  Tlioituis  is  already  in  the  otKce." 
He  then  added,  "It  is  only  a  temporary  arrangement ;  I  shall  send  in  to  the  Senate  at  once 
a  good  name  for  the  olSce." 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  find  it,  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  my  duty  to 
object  to  this.  There  is  no  end  to  declarations  of  this  sort.  The  admission  of 
those  to  Sherman  and  to  Thomas  was  advocated  on  the  ground  that  the  office 
was  tendered  to  them  and  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  res  gestae:  This  is  mere  nar- 
ration, mere  statement  of  what  he  had  done  and  what  he  intended  to  do.  It 
never  was  evidence  and  never  will  be  evidence  in  any  organized  court,  so  far 
as  any  experience  in  court  has  taught  me.  I  do  not  see  why  you  limit  it.  If 
Mr.  Perrin,  who  says  that  he  has  heretofore  been  on  the  stump,  can  go  there 
and  ask  him  questions,  and  the  answers  can  be  received,  why  not  anybody  else  ? 
If  Mr.  Selye  could  go  there,  why  not  everybody  else  ?  Why  could  he  not  make 
declarations  to  every  man,  ay,  and  woman,  too,  and  bring  them  in  here,  as  to 
what  he  intended  to  do  and  what  he  had  done  to  instruct  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  in  their  duties  sitting  as  a  high  court  of  impeachment  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  am  not  aware  that  the  credit  of  this  testi- 
mony is  at  all  affected  by  the  fact  that  Mr.  Perrin  has  been  engaged  in  political 
.canvasses,  nor  do  I  suppose  that  it  assists  us  in  determining  whether  this  should 
be  admitted,  because  a  declaration  might  be  made  even  to  a  female.  The  ques- 
tion, then,  is,  whether  the  declaration,  at  this  time  and  under  these  circumstances, 
of  the  President's  intent  in  what  he  had  done  was  and  is  proper  to  be  heai-d. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  was  an  interview  between  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  a  member  of  Congress,  one  of  "  the  grand  inquest  of  the 
nation,"  holding,  therefore,  an  official  duty  and  having  access,  by  reason  of  his 
official  privilege,  to  the  person  of  the  President;  that  at  this  hour  of  the  day 
the  President  was  in  the  attitude  of  supposing,  upon  the  report  of  General 
Thomas,  that  Mr.  Stanton  was  ready  to  yield  the  office,  desiring  only  tbe  time 
necessary  to  accommodate  his  private  convenience,  and  that  he  then  stated  to 
these  gentlemen,  "  I  have  removed  Mr.  Stanton  and  appointed  General  Tiiomas 
ad  interim,^^  which  was  their  first  intelligence  of  the  occurrence ;  that  upon  the 
suggestion,  "Will  there  not  be  trouble  or  difficulty?"  the  President  answered 
(showing  thus  the  bearing  on  any  question  of  threats  or  purpose  of  force  as  to 
be  imputed  to  him  from  the  declarations  that  General  Thomas  was  making  at 
about  the  same  hour  to  Mr.  Wilkeson)  that  there  was  no  occasion  for  or  "  no 
danger  of  that,  as  General  Thomas  was  already  in."  Then,  as  to  the  motive  or 
purpose  entertained  by  the  President  at  the  time  of  this  act  of  providing  any- 
body that  should  control  the  War  Department  or  the  military  appropriations,  or 
by  combination  with  the  Treasury  Department  suck  the  public  funds,  or  to  have, 
though  I  regret  to  repeat  the  words  as  used  by  the  honorable  manager,  a  tool  or 
a  slave  to  carry  on  the  office  to  the  detriment  of  the  public  service,  we  propose 
to  show  that  at  the  very  moment  he  asserts,  "  This  is  but  a  temporary  arrange- 
ment; I  shall  at  once  send  in  a  good  name  for  the  office  to  the  Senate." 

Now,  you  will  perceive  that  this  bears  upon  the  President's  condition  of  pur- 
pose in  this  matter,  both  in  respect  to  any  force  as  threatened  or  suggested  by 
anybody  else  being  imputable  to  him  at  this  time,  and  upon   the   question   of 
whether  this  appointment  of  General  Thomas  had  any  other  purpose  than  what 
40  IP 


626  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

appeared  upon  its  face,  a  nominal  appointment,  to  raise  tlie  question  of  whether 
Mr.  Stanton  would  retire  or  not,  and  determined,  as  it  seemed  to  be  for  the 
moment,  by  the  acquiescence  of  Mr.  Stanton,  was  then  oidy  to  be  maintained 
until  a  name  was  sent  into  the  Senate,  as  by  proof  hitherto  given  we  have  shown 
was  done  on  the  following  day  before  one  o'clock. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  ask  that  the  question  be  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  proposal  of  the  counsel  for  the  President  will  be 
read. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  the  President  tlien  stated  tliat  he  had  issued  an  order  for  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stantou  and  the  employment  of  Mr.  Thomas  to  perform  the  duties  ad  interim ; 
that  thereupon  Mr.  Porrin  said,  "Supposing  Mr.  Stanton  should  oppose  the  order."  The 
President  replied  :  "There  is  no  danger  of  that,  for  General  Tiiomas  is  already  in  the  office." 
He  then  added  :  "  It  is  only  a  temporary  arrangement ;  I  shall  send  in  to  the  Senate  at  once  a 
good  name  for  the  office." 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Mr.  President,  as  this  objection  is  outside  of  any 
former  ruling  of  the  Senate,  and  is  perfectly  within  the  rule  laid  down  in  Hardy's 
case,  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  that  rule  again,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  entering  upon  any  considerable  discussion,  but  to  leave  this  objec- 
tion imder  that  rule  to  the  decision  of  the  Senate  : 

Nothing  is  so  clear  as  that  all  declarations  which  apply  to  facts,  and  even  apply  to  the 
particular  case  that  is  charged,  though  the  intent  should  make  a  part  of  that  chai^ge,  are 
evidence  against  a  prisoner,  and  are  not  evidence  for  him,  because  the  presumption  upon 
which  c!eclarations  are  evidence  is,  that  no  man  would  declare  anything  against  himself 
unless  it  were  true  ;  but  everj'  man,  if  he  was  in  a  difficulty,  or  in  the  view  to  any  difficulty, 
would  make  declarations  for  himself. — 24  Stale  Trials,  p.  1096. 

If  this  offer  of  proof  does  not  come  perfectly  within  that  rule,  then  I  never 
met  a  case  within  my  experience  that  would  come  within  its  provisions.  I 
leave  this  objection  to  the  decision  of  the  Senate  upon  that  rule. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  may  truly  be  said,  I  suppose,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators, 
that  the  question  now  proposed  is  not  entirely  covered  by  any  previous  ruling 
of  the  Senate,  because  there  were  circumstances  in  regard  to  the  attitude  of  the 
persons  between  whom  and  the  President  those  conferences  took  place  that  are 
not  precisely  reproduced  here  in  the  relation  of  a  member  of  Congress  toward  the 
President.  But,  Senators,  you  will  perceive  that  before  the  controversy  arose, 
and  at  a  time  when,  in  the  President's  opinion,  there  was  to  be  no  controversy, 
he  made  this  statement  in  the  course  of  his  proper  intercourse  with  this  member 
of  Congress,  thus  introduced  to  him,  concerning  his  public  action.  It  is  appli- 
cable in  reference  both  to  the  point  of  why  the  appointment  of  Grcneral  Thomas 
was  made  and  with  what  limitation  of  purpose  in  so  appointing  him,  and  as  bear- 
ing also  upon  the  question  of  whether  he  was  using  or  jnstitying  force.  May 
not  declarations  that  are  drawn  from  supposed  coadjutors  of  his,  with  a  view 
of  fixing  upon  him  the  responsibility  of  the  same,  be  rebutted  by  liis  statements 
at  the  same  period  in  this  open  and  appanMitly  truthfid  manner,  unconnected 
with  any  agitation  or  any  questions  of  difficulty  or  any  lis  mota  1  And  then  it 
is  important,  as  bearing  upon  this  precise  fact,  that  the  next  day  having  sent  in, 
as  we  have  proved,  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewiug,  sr.,  of  Ohio,  for  the  j)]ace  of 
Secretary  of  War,  to  show  that  that  was  not  a  purpose  or  an  act  that  was  formed 
after  the  occasion  of  difficulty  or  after  the  appearance  of  danger  or  threat  to  him- 
self;  but  that  at  the  very  moment  that  he  was  performing  the  act  of  removing 
Mr.  Stanton  and  appointing  General  Tliomas,  and  had  supposed  that  it  had 
quietly  been  acceded  to,  he  then  and  there  had  the  purpose  not  of  making  an 
appointment  of  CJeneral  Thomas  that  was  to  hold,Avhich  should  supersede  proper 
action  of  the  Senate;  but  at  the  very  moment,  having  used  this-necessary  appoint- 
ment for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  question  of  tlu;  Constitution  and  of  the  law, 
he  then  proposed  to  send  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a  uominatiou  for 
the  office. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  627 

Mr.'l\[anao;ev  Butler.  Mr.  President,  tliere  are  one  or  two  new  facts  now  put 
in,  or  pretended  facts,  upon  wliicli  this  evidence  is  pressed.  Ttje  more  material 
one  is  that  this  was  before  any-  controversy  arose  between  the  President  and 
Congress  upon  the  subject  of  Mr.  Stanton.  If  that  Avere  so,  then  it  might  pos- 
sibly have  some  color  of  a  shadow  of  a  shade  of  bearing.  But  had  there  not 
been  a  controversy  going  on  ?  Had  he  not  known  that  tlic  Senate  had  restored 
Mr.  Stanton  ?  Had  he  not  tried  to  get  him  out  and  had  they  not  })ut  him  back? 
Had  he  not  been  beseeching  and  beseeching  General  Sherman  to  take  the  office 
weeks,  ay,  months  before,  and  had  not  General  Sherman  told  him,  "  I  cannot 
take  it  without  getting  into  difficulty ;  there  will  be  trouble  ;  why  mix  me,  an 
army  officer,  irp  in  this  trouble  V  And  yet  the  President's  counsid  rise  here  in 
their  place  and  put  this  evidence  before  you,  because  it  was  his  declaration 
before  any  controversy  arose  or  was  likely  to  arise  ! 

Another  proposition  is  put  in  here,  and  that  is  that  this  must  be  evidence 
because  it  was  said  to  a  member  of  Congress.  I  am  aware  that  we  have  many 
rights,  privileges,  and  appurtenances  belonging  to  our  official  position,  but  I 
never  was  aware  before  that  one  of  them  was  that  what  was  said  to  us  was  evi- 
dence because  it  was  said  to  us  by  anybody.  I  have  had  a  great  many  things 
said  to  me  that  I  should  be  very  unwilling  to  have  regarded  as  evidence.  For 
instance,  here  is  a  written  declaration  sent  to  me  to-day.  "  Butler,  prepare  to 
meet  your  God."  [Laughter.]  "  The  avenger  is  abroad  on  your  track."  "Hell 
is  your  portion."  [Laughter.]  Now,  I  trust  that  is  not  evidence  because  it  i.s 
said'  to  a  member  of  Congress.  And  yet  it  is  just  as  pertinent,  just  as  competent, 
in  my  judgment,  as  this  declaration.  We  ai'e  to  have  these  kinds  of  declara- 
tions made  to  us  by  the  enemies  of  the  country,  and  we  are  to  sit  here  and  admit 
the  President's  declarations  in  justification  of  his  conduct,  which  brings  out  such 
a  condition  of  this  country. 

I  did  not  mean,  by  any  manner  of  means,  when  1  was  up  before,  to  suggest 
that  the  fact  of  this  being  made  to  a  gentleman  Avho  is  on  the  stump  would  make 
it  more  or  less  competent ;  only  to  show  that  so  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  so  far 
as  they  choose  to  put  in  his  profession,  it  is  utterly  outside  of  this  case.  I  do 
not  think  it  would  make  it  more  or  less  evidence  because  it  should  have  been 
made  to  a  woman;  1  was  only  foreseeing  what  might  come — quite  as  probable 
as  this — that  some  of  the  lady  friends — I  beg  pardon — the  woman  friends  of 
the  President  might  have  gone  to  the  White  House  on  that  day  and  he  might 
have  told  them  what  his  purpose  was.  It  would  be  just  as  much  evidence,  in 
my  judgment,  as  this;  and  it  was  only  in  that  view,  to  show  the  innumerableness 
of  the  persons  to  'whom  these  competent  declarations  could  be  made,  that  I 
brought  up  the  illustration  which  produced  the  answer  on  the  part  of  the  learned 
counsel. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  lis  mota,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  so  far  as  it  has 
been  alluded  to  as  bringing  discredit  upon  the  President's  statements,  is  the 
controversy  between  Congress  and  himself  in  regard  to  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Stanton.  What  political  differences  there  are  or  may  have  been  between  the 
President  and  the  houses  of  Congress,  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  inquire;  nor  is 
it  of  the  least  consequence  to  inquire  into  the  period  during  which  the  suspension 
of  Mr.  Stanton  had  taken  place,  for  that  certainly  was  within  any  view  of  the 
law  that  can  be  suggested.  I  referred,  therefore,  as  has  often  been  referred,  to 
the  controversy  produced  by  the  threat  of  the  House  and  its  very  prompt  exe- 
cution of  impeachment ;  and  that  had  not  occurred  in  any  point  to  ask  the 
President's  attention  at  the  moment  of  this  statement.  It  was  therefore  a  state- 
ment by  him  unaffected  by  any  such  considerations  as  those. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  the  Chief  Justice  is  unable  to  determine  the 
precise  extent  to  which  the  Senate  regards  its  own  decisions  as  applicable.  He 
has  understood  the  decision  to  be  that,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  intent,  evi- 
dence may  be  given  of  conversations  with  the  President  at  or  near  the  time  of 


628  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  transaction.  It  is  said  that  this  evidence  is  distinguishable  from  that  which 
has  been  ah'ead j  introduced.  The  Chief  Justice  is  not  able  to  distiniruish  it ;  but 
he  will  submit  directly  to  the  Senate  the  question  ■whether  it  is  admissible  or  not. 

Mr.  Co.XNESS.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  that  question. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas,  9  ;  nays,  37  ;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Hendricks,  McCreery,  Pat- 
terson of  Tennessee,  and  Vickers — 9. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Conklingf,  Conness,  Corbett  Cragin,  Drake, 
Ferry,  Fessendeu,  Fowler,  Fieliugliuysen,  Grimes,  Harhui,  Howard,  Howe,  .Jolmson,  Mor- 
jran,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire, 
Ponieroy,  Ramsey,  Koss,  Sherman,  Sjiragne,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Win- 
kle, Willey,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 37. 

Not  votixg — Messrs.  Anthony,  Cole,  Edmunds,  Henderson,  Norton,  Sanlsbury,  Sumner, 
and  Wade— 8. 

So  the  Senate  decided  the  question  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  This  evidence  being  excluded,  we  have  no  other  questions  to 
ask  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  none,  sir. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  have  reached  a  point,  ^Tr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  at 
which  it  will  be  convenient  to  us  that  we  should  not  be  i-equired  to  produce 
more  evidence  to-day. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  I  hope  upon  this  movement  for  delay 
the  President's  coitnsel  will  be  called  upon  to  go  on  with  their  case,  and  I  have 
only  to  put  to  them  the  exact  thing  that  the  President's  counsel.  Cox  and  Mr. 
Merrick,  used  in  the  case  of  General  Thomas  before  the  criminal  court  of  this 
District,  according  to  Merrick's  testimony.  It  is  always  ungracious  to  object  to 
delay  because  of  the  sickness  of  counsel.  We  should  have  been  glad  to  have 
Mr.  Stanbery  hei-e,  but  these  gentlemen  present  can  try  this  case.  There  are 
four  of  them.  When  a  motion  to  postpone  the  case  cf  Thomas  before  Chief 
Justice  Cartter  was  made — to  postpone  the  case  because  of  the  sickness  of  Mr. 
Carpenter,  for  a  single  day,  the  President's  counsel,  arguing  his  case,  trying  his 
case  before  the  court,  said  "No;  a  case  involving  so  much  of  public  administra- 
tion cannot  wait  for  the  sickness  of  counsel."  "  I  thank  thee,  -lew,  for  teaching 
me  that  word."  The  President's  counsel  there  well  told  us  M^hat  we  ought  to 
do.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Thomas  the  President  could  not  wait  for  sick  men  or 
sick  women.  The  case  must  go  through.  We  cannot  wait  now,  on  the  same 
ground,  for  the  sickness  of  the  learned  Attorney  General  (  and  why  should 
we  ?  Why  should  not  this  President  be  called  upon  now  to  go  on  1  We 
have  been  here  thirty-three  working  days  since  the  President  actually  filecl 
his  answer,  and  we,  the  managers,  have  used  but  six  days  of  them,  and  the 
counsel  but  part  of  seven.  Twenty-one  of  them  have  been  given  to  delays  on 
motion  of  the  I'resident,  and  there  have  been  four  adjournments  on  the  days  we 
have  worked  earlier  than  the  usual  time  of  adjournment,  in  order  to  accommo- 
date the  President. 

Now,  the  whole  legislation  of  this  country  is  stopping;  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives has  to  be,  day  by  day,  h(;re  at  your  bar.  The  taxes  of  the  country 
cannot  be  revised  because  this  trial  is  in  the  way.  The  approj)riations  for  car- 
rying on  the  government  cannot  be  passed  because  this  trial  is  in  the  way. 
Nothing  can  be  done,  and  the  whole!  country  waits  upon  us  and  our  action,  aud 
it  is  not  time  now  for  the  exhibitions  of  courtesy.  Larger,  liigher,  greater  inter- 
ests are  at  stake  than  such  questions  of  ceremony.  Ear  be  it  from- me  not  to 
desire  to  be  courteous,  and  not  to  desire  that  we  should  have  our  absent  and 
sick  friend  here  to  take  part  with  us;  but  the  interests  of  the  people  are  greater 
than  the  interests  of  any  one  individual.  Gentlemen  of  the  Senate,  this  is  the 
closing  up  of  a  war  wherein  three  hundred  thousand  men  laid  di;wn  their  lives 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  629 

to  save  the  country.  In  one  day  we  sacrificed  them  by  tens  and  twenties  of 
thousands  on  the  fiehl  of  battle,  and  shall  the  country  wait  now  in  its  march  to 
safety  because  of  the  sickness  of  one  man  and  jiause  for  an  indefinite  time — 
because  the  duration  of  sickness  is  always  indefinite?  More  than  that,  I  have 
here  iu  my  baud  testimony  of  what  is  going  on  this  day  and  this  hour  in  the 
south. 

]\[r.  Curtis.  We  object  to  the  introduction  of  any  testimony. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  object  to  the  relevancy  of  it  here. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  The  relevancy  of  it  is  this,  that  while  we  are  waiting 
for  the  Attorney  General  to  get  well,  and  you  are  asked  to  delay  this  trial  for 
that  reason,  numbers  of  our  fellow-citizens  are  being  murdered  day  by  day. 
There  is  not  a  man  here  who  does  not  know  that  the  moment  justice  is  doue  ou 
this  great  criminal  these  murders  will  cease. 

Mr.  Curtis  rose. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  cannot  be  interrupted.  This  is  the  great  fact  which 
stands  here  before  us,  and  we  are  asked,  "  Why  stand  ye  here  idle  ?"  by  every 
true  man  in  the  country.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  in  Alabama  your  register  of  bank- 
ruptcy, appointed  by  yourself.  General  Spencer,  of  Tuscaloosa,  is  driven  to-day 
from  his  duties  and  his  home  by  the  Ivu-Klux  Klan,  upon  fear  of  his  life,  and  I 
have  the  evidence  of  it  lying  on  our  table ;  and  shall  we  here  delay  this  trial 
any  longer,  under  our  responsibility  to  our  countrymen,  to  our  consciences,  and 
to  our  God,  because  of  a  question  of  courtesy  1  While  we  are  being  courteous 
the  true  Union  men  of  the  south  are  being  murdered,  and  on  our  heads  and  ou 
our  skirts  is  this  blood  if  we  remain  any  longer  idle. 

Again,  sir,  since  you  have  begun  this  trial — I  hold  the  sworn  evidence  of 
what  I  say  in  my  hand — since  the  20th  day  of  February  last,  and  up  to  the  4th 
day  of  this  present  April — and  no  gold  had  been  sold  by  the  Treasury  prior  to 
that  time  since  December  12 — S  10,800,000  of  your  gold  has  been  sold  at  a 
sacrifice  to  your  treasury,  and  by  whom?  More  than  one-half  of  it,  $5,600,t)00, 
by  one  ]\[cGinnis,  whom  the  Senate  would  not  permit  to  hold  office ;  and  over 
$10,000  iu  currency,  of  which  I  have  the  official  evidence  here,  under  the  sworn 
oath  of  the  Assistant  Treasurer  at  New  York,  has  been  paid  to  him,  after  the 
Senate  had  refused  to  have  him  hold  any  office,  and  had  rejected  him  as  a 
minister  to  Sweden.  He  now  takes  charge  of  the  sale  of  your  gold,  by  order 
of  the  Executive,  as  a  broker,  and  we  are  to  wait  day  by  day  while  he  puts 
into  his  pocket  from  the  treasury  of  the  country  money  by  the  thousands, 
because  this  gold  is  sold  from  one  and  one-eighth  per  cent,  to  three  per  cent, 
lower  than  the  market  rates,  at  different  dates,  as  taken  from  the  best  tables, 
'i'he  commissions  alone  amount  to  what  I  have  said,  supposing  the  gold  to  be 
sold  honestly  by  this  rejected  diplomat. 

Worse  still,  sir;  I  have  here  from  the  same  source  the  fact  that  since  the  1st 
day  of  January  last  there  have  been  bought  in  the  city  of  New  York  alone,  ou 
behalf  of  the  Treasury,  $27,058,100  of  the  bonds  of  the  United  States,  by  men 
who  return  them  from  three-eighths,  one-half,  five-eighths,  to  three-quarters 
per  cent,  above  tlie  market  price,  and  since  February  20,  -Si  4,181,600  worth. 

Mr.  Manager  LoG.\.\.  Below. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  No  ;  I  mean  what  I  say,  above.  I  never  make  mis- 
takes iu  such  matters.  I  know  what  I  say.  From  the  3d  of  January  to  the 
28th  of  January,  by  such  purchases,  the  price  of  bonds  Avas  run  up  and  the 
people  were  made  to  pay  that  difference — run  up  from  one  hundred  and  four 
and  three-quarters  to  one  hundred  and  eight  per  cent.,  and  still  the  purchases 
went  on,  and  they  have  gone  on  from  that  day  of  February  down  to  the  4th  of 
April, when  the  managers  of  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives felt  it  their  duty  to  take  this  testimony  of  the  assistant  treasurer  at  New 
York  under  oath. 

Now,  I  say,  for  the  safety  of  the  finances  of  the  people,  for  the  progress  of 


630  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

the  legislation  of  the  people,  for  the  safety  of  the  true  and  loyal  men,  black  and 
white,  in  the  south  who  have  perilled  their  lives  for  four  years  ;  yea,  five  years ; 
yea,  six  years  ;  yea,  seven  years,  in  your  behalf;  for  the  good  of  the  country,  for 
all  that  is  dear  to  any  man  and  patriot,  I  pray  let  this  trial  ])roceed  ;  let  us  come 
to  a  determination  of  this  issue.  If  the  President  of  the  United  Statr-s  goes  free 
and  acquit,  then  the  country  must  deal  with  that  state  of  facts  as  it  arises  ;  but  if 
he,  as  the  House  of  Representatives  instructs  me,  and  as  I  believe,  is  guilty ;  if 
on  his  head  rests  the  responsibility ;  if  from  his  policy,  from  his  obstruction  of 
the  peace  of  the  country,  all  this  corruption  and  all  these  nuirders  come,  in  the 
name  of  Heaven  let  us  have  an  end  of  them  and  see  to  it  that  Ave  can  sit  at  least 
four  hours  a  day  to  attend  to  this,  the  great  business  of  the  people. 

Sir,  it  may  be  supposed  here  that  I  am  mistaken  as  to  time  wasted ;  but  let 
us  see ;  let  me  give  you  day  and  date.  The  articles  of  impeachment  were  pre- 
sented on  March  4,  and  the  summons  was  returnable  March  13,  at  which  time 
the  President,  by  its  terms,  Avas  requested  to  answer".  Delay  was  given,  on  his 
application  for  forty  days,  to  the  23d — ten  days,  when  the  answer  was  filed,  and 
a  motion  was  made  for  thirty  days'  delay,  which  failed.  Then  a  motion  for  a 
reasonable  time  after  replication  was  filed,  which  was  done  on  the  24th.  Time 
was  given,  on  motion  of  the  President's  counsel,  until  the  30th — six  days.  On 
that  day  the  managers  opened  their  case,  and  proceeded  without  delay  with 
their  evidence  till  April  4 — six  days.  Then,  at  the  request  of  the  President's 
counsel,  adjourned  to  April  9 — five  days.  Mr.  Curtis  opened  a  part  of  a  day, 
and  asked  for  an  adjournment  till  the  10th,  wherein  we  lost  half  a  day.  They 
continued  putting  in  evidence  till  the  11th  (12th  being  Sunday)  and  13th. 
Because  of  sickness,  adjourned  again  over  till  Wednesday,  14th.  Wednesday 
adjourned  early,  because  counsel  could  go  no  further.  Thui-sday,  now  another 
motion  to  adjourn,  because  counsel  cannot  go  on.  Thirty-four  days  since  the 
President  filed  his  answer ;  six  days  used  by  the  managers  in  putting  in  their 
case  ;  parts  of  seven  rrsed  by  the  counsel  for  the  President,  and  tAventy-one 
given  as  delay  to  the  President  on  his  motion. 

I  do  not  speak  of  all  this  to  complain  of  the  Senate,  but  only  that  you  and 
the  country  may  see  exactly  how  courteous  and  how  kind  you  have  been  to  the 
criminal  and  to  his  counsel.  Yielding  to  the  request  of  the  counsel  who  opened 
you  lost  half  a  day.  TJien  the  opening  consumed  parts  of  two  days.  On  the 
next  day  they  said  they  were  not  qrrite  ready  to  go  through  with  General  Sher- 
man, and  you  again  adjourned  earlier  than  usual.  Then  we  lost  almost  all  of 
Monday  in  discussing  the  questions  which.wei'e  raised.  We  adjourned  early  on 
Monday,  as  you  remember,  and  on  the  next  day  there  was  an  adjournment 
almost  immediately  after  the  b'enate  met,  because  of  the  learned  Attorney  Gen^ 
eral.     Now,  all  we  ask  is  that  this  case  may  go  on. 

If  it  be  said  that  we  are  hard  in  our  demands  that  this  trial  go  on,  let  me 
contrast  for  a  moment  this  case  with  a  great  State  trial  in  England,  at  which 
were  present  Lord  Chief  Justice  Eyre,  Lord  Chief  Baron  McUonald,  Baron 
Hotham,  Mr.  Justice  Buller,  Sir  Nash  Grose,  Mr.  Justice  Lawrence,  and  others 
of  her  Majesty's  judges  in  the  trial  of  Thomas  Hardy  for  treason.  There  the 
court  sat  from  9  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  1  o'clock  at  night,  and  they 
thus  sat  therefrom  Tuesday  until  Friday  night  at  1  o'clock,  and  then,  when 
Mr.  Erskine,  afterward  Lord  Chancellor  Erskine,  asked  of  that  court  that  they 
would  not  come  in  so  early  by  an  hour  the  next  day  because  he  was  unwell  and 
wanted  time,  the  coirrt  after  argument  refused  it,  and  would  not  give  him  even 
that  hour  in  which  to  reflect  upon  his  opening  which  he  was  to  make,  and  which 
occupied  nine  hours  in  its  delivery,  until  the  jury  asked  it,  and  then  they  gave 
him  but  a  single  hour,  although  he  said  upon  his  honor  to  the  court  that  every 
night  he  had  not  got  to  his  house  until  between  2  and  3  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
and  he  was  regularly  in  court  at  9  o'clock  on  the  following  morning. 

That  ia  the  way  cases  of  great  consequence  arc  tried  in  England.     That  is 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  631 

tlie  way  other  courts  pit.  I  am  not  complaining  here,  senators,  understand  me. 
I  am  only  contmstiiig  the  delays  given,  the  kindnesses  shown,  the  courtesies 
extended  in  this  greatest  of  all  chses,  and  where  the  greatest  interests  are  at 
stake,  compared  with  every  other  case  ever  tried  elsewhere.  The  managers  are 
ready.  "We  have  been  ready  ;  at  all  hazards  and  sacrifices  we  would  be  ready. 
We  only  ask  that  now  the  counsel  for  the  President  shall  be  likewise  readj^aud 
go  on  without  these  interminable  delays  with  which,  when  the  House  began  this 
impeachment,  the  friends  of  the  President  there  rose  up  and  threatened.  You 
will  find  such  threats  in  the  Globe.  Mr.  James  Brooks,  of  New  York,  said,  in 
substance :  "  You  can  go  on  with  your  impeachment,  but  I  warn  you  that  we 
will  make  you  go  through  all  the  forms,  and  if  you  go  through  all  the  forms  we 
will  keep  it  going  until  the  end  of  Mr.  Johnson's  term,  and  it  will  be  fruitless." 
Having  thus  threatened  you,  senators,  I  had  supposed  that  you  would  not  allow 
the  threat  to  be  carried  out,  as  it  is  attempted  to  be  carried  out,  by  these  con- 
tinued delays. 

Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  have  thus  given  you  the  reasons  pressing  upon 
my  mind  why  this  delay  should  not  be  had ;  and  I  admit  I  have  done  it  with 
considerable  warmth,  because  I  feel  warmly.  I  open  no  mail  of  mine  that  I  do 
not  take  up  an  account  from  the  south  of  some  murder,  or  worse,  of  some  friend 
of  the  country.  I  want  these  things  to  stop.  Many  a  man  whom  I  have 
known  standing  by  my  side  for  the  Union  I  can  hear  of  now  only  as  laid  in  the 
cold  grave  by  the  assassin's  band.  This  has  stirred  my  feelings,  I  admit.  The 
loss  of  my  friends,  the  loss  to  the  country  of  those  who  have  stood  by  it,  has, 
perhaps,  very  much  stirred  my  heart,  so  that  I  have  not  been  able,  with  that  cool- 
ness with  which  judicial  proceedings  should  be  carried  on,  to  address  you  upon 
this  agonizing  topic.  I  say  nothing  of  the  threats  of  assassination  made  every 
hour  and  upon  every  occasion,  even  when  objection  to  testimony  is  made  by  the 
managers.  I  say  nothing  of  the  threats  made  against  the  lives  of  the  great  offi- 
cers of  the  Senate  and  against  the  managers.  We  are  all  free.  There  is  an 
old  Scotch  proverb  in  our  favor:  "The  threatened  dog  a'  lives  the  longest." 
We  have  not  the  slightest  fear  of  these  cowardly  menaces ;  but  all  these  threats, 
these  unseemly'  libels  on  our  former  government,  will  go  away  when  this  man 
goes  out  of  the  White  House. 

Mr.  CoNi\ESS.  Mr.  President,  I  offer  the  following  order  : 

Ordered,  That  on  each  day  hereafter  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  shall 
meet  at  11  o'clock  a.  m. 

Mr.  SuMNKR.  I  send  to  the  Chair  a  substitute  for  that  order. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  substitute  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Massachusetts. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  :  ^\ 

That,  considering  the  public  interests  which  suffer  from  the  delay  of  this  trial,  and  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  order  already  adopted  to  proceed  with  all  convenient  despatch,  the  Senate  ^v•ill  sit 
from  10  o'clock  in  the  forenoon  to  G  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  with  such  brief  recess  as  may  be 
ordered. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order,  whether  it  is  in  order  to  con- 
sider these  propositions  to-day  under  the  ruling  of  the  Chair 

The  Chief  Justice.  They  are  not  in  order  if  anybody  objects. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  I  object  to  their  consideration. 

The  Chief  Justice.  They  will  go  over  until  to-morrow. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  I  am  not  aware  how  much  of 
the  address  of  the  honorable  manager  is  appropriate  to  anything  that  has  pro- 
ceeded from  me.  I,  at  the  opening  of  the  court  this  morning,  stated  how  we 
might  be  situated,  and  added  that  when  that  point  of  time  arrived  I  should  sub- 
mit the  matter  to  the  discretion  of  the  Senate.  I  have  never  heard  such  a 
harangue  before  in  a  court  of  justice  ;  but  I  cannot  say  that  I  may  not  hear  it 
again  in  this  court.  All  these  delays  and  the  ill  consequences  seem  to  press 
upon  the  honorable  managers  except  at  the  precise  point  of  time  when  some  of 


632  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

their  months  are  open  occupying  your  attention  with  their  long  harangues.  J^f 
you  will  look  at  the  reports  of  the  discussious  on  questions  of  evidence,  as  they 
appear  in  the  newspapers,  while  all  that  we  have  to  say  is  embraced  within 
the  briefest  paragraphs,  long  columns  are  taken  up  with  the  views  of  the  learned 
managers,  and  hour  after  hour  i^  taken  up  with  debates  on  the  pro(hiction  of  our 
evidence  by  tbese  prolonged  discussions,  and  now  twenty  minutes  by  the  watch 
with  this  harangue  of  the  honorable  manager  about  the  Ku-Klux  Klan.  I  have 
said  what  I  have  said  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Camekun.  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  inquire  whether  the  word 
"  harangue  "  be  in  order  here? 

j\Ir.  Manager  Butler.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned  it  is  of  no  consequence. 

Mr.  DooLiTTLE.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  should  like  to  know  whether  the  har- 
angue itself  was  in  order,  not  the  word  1 

Mr.  Ferry.  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of 
impeachment,  adjourn. 

Mr.  SuAi.xER.  I  move  that  the  adjournment  be  until  10  o'clock. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  That  is  not  in  order. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  not  in  order.  The  motion  to  adjourn  is,  under  the 
rule,  to  the  usual  time. 

Mr.  Sumner.  On  that  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  not  ordered. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Senate,  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeach- 
ment, adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 


Friday,  April  17,  1868. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  counsel  for  the  respondent,  except  Mr.  Stanbery,  appeared  and 
took  the  seats  assigned  to  them  respectively. 

The  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
preceded  by  Mr.  E.  B.  Washburne,  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accom- 
panied by  the  Speaker  and  Clerk,  appeared  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  pro- 
vided for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  journal  of  yesterday's  pro- 
ceedings. 

Mr.  Stewart.  I  move  that  the  reading  of  the  journal  be  dispensed  with. 

The  Cmt;^  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection  it  will  be  so  ordered.  The 
Chair  hears  none.  It  is  so  ordered.  During  the  sitting  of  yesterday  the  sena- 
tor from  California  [Mr.  Conness]  offered  an  order  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a 
court  of  impeachment,  meet  hereafter  at  11  o'clock  a.  m.  That  will  be  before 
the  Senate  unless  objected  to.     The  Secretary  will  read  the  order. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Ordered,  Tliat  on  each  day  hereafter  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  shall 
meet  at  Jl  o'clock  a.  m. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Does  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  desire  to  offer  his 
amendment  ? 

Mr.  Sumner.  I  did  offer  it,  Mr.  President,  yesterday. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  amendment  offered  by  the  senator  from  Massa- 
chusetts will  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment,  as  follows  : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  "ordered"  and  insert: 

That  consideriuf^  the  public  interests  whicii  sutier  from  the  delay  of  this  trial,  and  in  piirsu- 
auco  of  the  order  already  adopted  to  proceed  with  all  couveuieut  despatch,  the  Seuato  will  sit 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  633 

from  10  o'clock  iu  the  tbrcuoou  to  G  o'clock  iu  the  af'ternoou,  with  such  brief  recess  as  may 
be  ordered. 

Mr.  Sumner.  On  that  I  sliould  like  to  have  the  yeas  and  nays. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas,  13;  nays, 
30  ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Cameron,  Chandler,  Cole,  Corbett,  Harlan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Pomeroy, 
Eamsey,  Stewart,  Sunnier,  Thayer,  Tipton,  and  Yates — J  3. 

Nays — Messrs.  Anthony,  Cattell,  Couness,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Drake,  Ferry,  Fes- 
senden.  Fowler,  Freliughuysen,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  Howard,  Howe,  Jolmson,  Morg'an, 
ISiorrill  of  Vermont,  ISIorton,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Koss, 
Saulsbury,  Sherman,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  Willey,  Williams,  and  Wilson — 30. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Coukliug,  Cragiu,  Edmunds,  Heuderson, 
McCreery,  Norton,  Nye,  Sprague,  and  Wade — 11. 

So  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  recurs  on  the  order  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  California. 

Mr.  CoMNESS.  On  that  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 
Mr.  CoMNESS.  Now  let  it  be  read. 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  on  each  day  hereafter  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  shall 
meet  at  11  o'clock  a.  ui. 

The  question,  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas,  29  ;  nays,  14  ;  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Coiikling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Ferry,  Freliughuysen,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of 
Vermont,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Sumner, 
Thayer,  Tipton,  Willey,  Williams,  Wilson,  aud  Yates — 29. 

Nays — Messrs.  Anthony,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  .Johnson, 
Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Trumbull,  Van  Wiukle,  and  Vickers — 14. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Edmunds,  Fessenden,  Henderson,  McCreery, 
Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Sprague,  and  Wade — II. 

So  the  order  was  adopted. 
Mr.  Ferry.  I  send  an  order  to  the  Chair. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Connecticut. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Whereas  there  appear  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  of  yesterday,  as  published  in  the 
Globe  of  this  morning,  certain  tabular  statements  incorporated  in  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Manager 
Butler  upon  the  question  of  adjournment,  wliich  tabular  statements  were  neither  spoken  of 
in  the  discussion,  nor  offered  or  received  in  evidence  :  Therefore, 

Ordered,  That  such  tabular  statements  be  omitted  from  the  proceedings  of  the  trial  as  pub- 
lished by  rule  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Is  that  a  matter  for  discussion  ] 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  order  will  be  for  present  consideration  unless 
objected  to. 

Mr.  Ferry.*  I  ask  its  present  consideration. 

The  Chief  Justice.  There  is  no  objection.     It  is  before  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  only  desire  to  say,  sir,  that  I  stated  the  effect  of  the 
tabular  statements  yesterday.  I  did  not  read  them  at  length,  because  it  would 
take  too  much  time. 

Mr.  He.\uricks.  Mr.  President,  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order  and  propriety. 
I  -wish  to  know  whether  it  is  the  right  of  any  senator  to  defend  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  against  attacks  that  are  made  here  upon  hi:n,  or  whether  our 
mouths  are  closed  while  these  attacks  are  made  ;  and,  if  it  is  not  the  province 
and  right  of  a  senator  to  defend  him  in  his  office,  whether  it  is  the  right  of  the 
manager  to  make  an  attack  upon  him  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  of  order  is  made  by  the  resolution  pro- 
posed by  the  senator  from  Connecticut.     Upon  that  question  of  order,  if  the 


634  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Senate  desire  to  debate  it,  it  will  be  proper  to  retire  for  consultation.  If 
no  senator  moves  that  order,  tbe  Chair  conceives  that  it  is  proper  that  the 
honorable  manager  should  be  heard  in  explanation. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  I  wish  to  say,  sir,  that  I  did  not  read  the  tables 
because  they  would  be  too  voluminous.  I  had  them  in  my  hands ;  I  made 
them  a  part  of  my  argument ;  I  read  the  conclusions  df  them,  and  stated  the 
inferences  to  be  drawn  from  them,  and  I  thought  it  was  due  to  myself  and  due 
to  the  Senate  that  they  should  be  put  exactly  as  they  were,  and  I  therefore 
incorporated  them  in  the  Globe.  To  the  remark  of  the  honorable  senator,  I 
simply  say  that  I  made  no  attack  on  the  Secretaiy  of  the  Treasury  ;  I  said 
nothing  of  him  ;  I  did  not  know  that  he  was  here  at  all  to  be  discussed ;  but  I 
dealt  with  the  act  as  the  act  of  the  Executive  simply,  and  whenever  called 
upon  to  show  I  can  show  the  reasons  why  I  dealt  with  that. 

Th2  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  order  submitted  by  the 
senator  from  Connecticut. 

The  Secretary  again  read  the  order. 

Mr.  Anthony.  Mr.  President,  I  understood  the  senator  from  Indiana  to 
inquire  if  under  the  rules  he  could  be  permitted  to  make  an  explanation,  or  to 
make  a  defence  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rules  positively  prohibit  debate. 

Mr.  Anthony.  But  by  unanimous  consent  I  suppose  the  rule  could  be  sus- 
pended. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  object. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Objection  is  made.  Senators,  you  who  are  in  favor  of 
agreeing  to  the  order  proposed  by  the  senator  from  Connecticut  will  please  say 
ay;  those  of  the  contrary  opinion,  no.  [Putting  the  question.]  The  ayes 
appear  to  have  it.     The  ayes  have  it,  and  the  order  is  adopted. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  tbe  President,  you  will  please 
proceed  with  the  defence. 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  call  William  W.  Armstrong. 

William  W.  Armstrong  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Question.  Please  state  your  name  in  full. 

Answer.  William  W.  Armstrong. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside? 

A.  I  reside  in  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  ask  permission  to  make  a  suggestion  to  the  Chair,  in  reference 
to  our  hearing  on  this  side  of  the  chamber.  Will  the  Chair  instruct  the  witness 
to  turn  his  face  in  this  direction? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  if  we  may  be  allowed  a  suggestion,  there  is 
not  so  much  silence  iu  the  chamber  as  would  be  possible,  and  we  must  take 
witnesses  with  such  natural  powers  as  they  possess. 

Mr.  Curtis,  (to  the  witness.)  Speak  as  loud  as  you  can. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Conversation  in  the  Seuate  chamber  must  be  suspended 

By  Mr.  Curtis: 

Q.  Repeat,  if  you  please,  what  is  your  residence? 

A.  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  or  business  ? 

A.  I  am  one  of  the  editors  and  proprietors  t)f  the  Cleveland  Plaindealer. 

Q.  Were  you  at  Cleveland  at  the  time  of  the  visit  mtido  to  that  city  by  Presi- 
dent Johnson  ia  the  summer  of  186G? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  formal  reception  of  the  President  by  any  com- 
mittee or  body  of  men  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  635 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  State  by  whom  he  was  received. 

A.  The  President  and  his  party  arrived  at  Cleveland  about  half-past  8 
o'clock  in  the  evening,  and  were  escorted  to  the  Kennard  House.  After  par- 
taking of  a  supper  the  President  was  escorted  on  to  the  balcony  of  the  Kennard 
House,  and  there  was  formally  welcomed  to  the  city  of  Cleveland,  on  behalf  of 
the  municipal  authorities  and  th<>  citizens,  by  the  president  of  the  city  council. 

Q.  Did  the  President  respond  to  that  address  of  welcome  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  was  the  situation  of  this  balcony  in  reference  to  the  street,  in  refer- 
ence to  its  exposure  and  publicity,  and  whether  or  not  there  was  a  large  crowd 
of  persons  present  1 

A.  There  was  a  very  large  crowd  of  persons  present,  and  there  were  quite  a 
large  number  of  peo})le  on  the  balcony. 

Q.  How  did  it  proceed  after  the  President  began  to  respond  1 

A.  For  a  few  moments  there  were  no  interruptions,  and  1  judge  from  what 
the  President  said  that  he  did  not  intend 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Excuse  me.  Stop  a  moment,  if  you  please.  I  object 
to  what  the  witness  supposed  were  the  President's  intentions. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  From  what  you  heard  and  saw  was  the  President  in  the  act  of  ranking  a 
continuous  address  to  the  assembly,  or  was  he  interrupted  by  the  crowd,  and 
describe  how  the  affair  proceeded  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  the  President  commenced  his  speech  by  saying  that  he  did  not 
intend  to  make  a  speech.  I  think,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  he  siid  that 
he  had  simply  come  tliere  to  make  the  acquaintance  of  the  people,  and  bid  them 
good-bye.  1  think  that  was  about  the  substance  of  the  first  paragraph  of  his 
speech.  He  apologized  for  the  non-appearance  of  General  Grant,  and  then  pro- 
ceeded with  his  speech. 

Q.  How  did  he  proceed,  sir?  Was  it  a  part  of  his  address,  or  was  it  in 
response  to  calls  made  upon  him  by  the  people  1     Describe  what  occurred. 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  did  not  hear  all  of  the  speech. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  calls  upon  him  from  the  crowd,  and  interruptions  1 

A.  I  did,  quite  a  number  of  them. 

Q.  From  what  you  saw  and  heard  the  President  say,  and  all  that  occurred, 
was  the  President  closing  his  remarks  at  the  time  when  these  interruptions 
began  1 

A.  That  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Can  you  say  Avhether  these  interruptions  and  calls  upon  the  President 
were  responded  to  by  his  remarks  1 

A.  Some  of  them  were. 

Q.  Were  the  interruptions  kept  up  during  the  continuance  of  the  address,  or 
was  he  allowed  to  proceed  without  interruption  ? 

A.  They  were  kept  up  very  nearly  to  the  conclusion  of  the  President's  speech. 

Q.  What  was  the  character  of  the  crowd  ?     Was  it  orderly  or  disorderly  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  the  large  majority  of  the  crowd  were  orderly. 

Q.  As  to  the  rest  ? 

A.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  disorder. 

Q.  Was  that  disorder  confined  to  one  or  two  persons,  or  did  it  affect  enough 
to  give  a  character  to  the  interruptions  1 

A.  I  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  how  many  were  engaged  in  the  interrup- 
tions. 

Q.  That  is  not  what  I  asked  you.  I  ask  you  whether  there  was  enough  to 
give  a  general  character  to  the  interruptions  1 

A.  There  were  quite  a  number  of  voices.  Whether  they  were  all  from  the 
same  persons  or  not  I  am  not  able  to  say. 


636  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  F.  W.  Pelton,  esq.,  was  the  president  of  the  city  council,  was  he  not  ? 

A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  Was  not  his  address  on  the  balcony  to  the  President  simply  in  the  hear- 
ing of  those  who  were  on  the  balcony,  and  did  not  the  President  after  he  had 
received  that  welcome  address  then  step  forward  to  speak  to  the  multitude  ? 

A.  1  believe  that  after  Mr.  Pelton  addressed  the  President  several  of  the  dis- 
tinguished gentlemen  who  accompanied  the  party  were  presented,  and  then,  in 
response  to  calls,  the  President  presented  himself. 

Q.  Presented  himself  in  response  to  the  crowd  ] 

A.  In  response  to  the 

Mr.  Curtis.  In  response  to  what? 

The  WrrNESs.  In  response  to  the  calls. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Would  you  say  that  this  was  a  correct  or  incorrect  report  of  that  proceed- 
ing : 

About  10  o'clock,  the  supper  being  over,  tlie  party  retired  to  the  balcony,  where  the 
President  was  formally  welcomed  to  the  Forest  City  by  F.  W.  Pelton,  esq.,  president  of  the 
city  conncil,  as  follows  : 

"  Mr.  President  :  On  behalf  of  the  municipal  authorities  of  the  city  I  cordially  extend 
to  you  the  hospitalities  of  the  citizens  of  Cleveland.  We  recognize  you  as  the  Chief  Mtigis- 
trate  of  this  now  free  republic  and  the  chosen  guardian  of  their  rights  and  liberties.  We  are 
grateful  for  the  opportunity  afforded  by  yoi\r  visit  to  our  city  to  honor  you  as  our  Chief  Magis- 
trate, and  again  I  extend  to  you  and  to  the  distinguished  members  of  your  party  a  hearty 
welcome. " 

Was  that  about  the  substance  of  Mr.  Peltou's  address  ? 
A.  That  was  about  the  substance,  I  think. 
Q.  Then  : 

The  President  and  several  members  of  his  party  then  appeared  at  the  front  of  the  balcony 
and  were  introduced  to  the  people  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Then  : 

The  vast  multitude  that  filled  the  streets  below  was  boisterous,  and  sometimes  bitter  and 
sarcastic  in  their  calls,  interludes,  and  replies,  though  sometimes  exceedingly  apt. 

Would  you  say  that  Avas  about  a  fair  representation  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  there  were  any  calls  or  any  interruptions  of  the  President's 
speech  until  after  he  had  proceeded  some  five  or  ten  minutes. 

Q.  But,  whenever  they  did  come,  would  that  be  a  fair  representation  of  them '? 

A.  What  is  your  question,  sir  1 

Q.  "  The  vast  multitude  that  filled  the  streets  below  was  boisterous,  and  some- 
times bitter  and  sarcastic  in  their  calls  ?" 

A.  They  were  to  some  extent. 

Q.  "They  istencd  with  attention  part  of  the  time,  and  at  other  times  com- 
pletely drown'ed  the  President's  voice  with  their  vociferations."     Was  that  so? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  that  was  so. 

Q.  "  After  all  the  presentations  had  been  made,  loud  calls  were  made  for  the 
President,  who  appeared  and  spoke  as  folloAvs  :"  Now  I  will  only  read  the 
first  part  to  see  if  you  will  agree  with  me  as  to  how  soon  the  interruptions 
came  in. 

Fem.ow-citizens  :  It  is  not  for  the  j)ur)>ose  of  making  a  speech  that  I  now  appear  before 
you.  I  am  aware  of  the  great  curiosity  which  prevails  to  see  strangers  who  have  notoriety 
and  distinction  in  the  country.  I  know  u  large  laimber  of  you  desire  to  see  General  Grant, 
and  to  hear  what  he  has  to  say.     [A  voice:  "Three  cheers  for  Grant."] 

Was  not  that  the  first  interru})tion? 

A.  That  was  the  first  interruption. 

Q.  "But  you  cannot  see  him  to-night..  He  is  extremely  ill."  Now,  then, 
was  there  any  interru])tion  after  that  until  he  spoke  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
and  was  not  that  simply  the  introduction  of  applause  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  637 

A.  There  were  three  cheers,  I  believe,  given  for  Stephen  A.  Uonghis  at  that 
time. 

Q.  Then  lie  went  on  without  interruption,  did  he  not,  until  these  words  came 
in : 

I  come  bofore  you  las  aa  American  citizen  simply,  and  not  as  tlie  Chief  Map^istrate 
clothed  in  the  insig-nia  and  paraphernalia  of  state;  being-  an  inhabitant  of  a  .State  of  this 
Union.     I  know  it  has  been  said  that  I  was  an  alien. 

Was  not  that  the  next  interruption? 
A.  I  do  not  remember  that  paragraph  in  the  speech. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  whether  that  was  there  or  not  1  Now,  sir,  do  you 
remember  any  other  interruption  until  he  came  to  the  paragraph — 

There  was,  two  years  aiyo,  a  ticket  before  you  for  the  Presidency.  I  was  placed  upon 
that  ticket  with  a  distinguished  citizen,  now  no  more. 

Then  did  not  the  voices  come  in,  ''  Unfortunate  !"  "  Too  bad  ?" 

A.  I  did  not  hear  them. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  they  were  or  were  not  said  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  Avill  not  trouble  you  any  further. 

Barton  Able  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Curtls  : 

Question.  State  your  full  name. 

Answer.  Barton  Able. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  In  St.  Louis, 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

A.  I  am  engaged  in  the  mercantile  business,  and  collector  of  internal  revenue 
for  the  first  district  of  Missouri. 

Q.  Were  you  at  St.  Louis  in  the  summer  of  1866,  at  the  time  when  President 
Johnson  visited  that  city  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  upon  any  committee  connected  with  the  reception  of  the  Presi- 
dent ? 

A.  I  was  upon  the  committee  of  reception  from  the  Merchants'  Union  Exchange. 

Q.  Where  did  the  reception  take  place  1 

A.  The  citizens  of  St.  Louis  met  the  President  and  party  at  Alton,  in 
Illinois,  some  24  miles^  above  St.  Louis.  My  recollection  is  that  the  mayor  of 
the  city  received  him  at  the  Lindell  Hotel,  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  You  speak  of  being  on  a  committee  of  some  mercantile  association.  What 
was  that  association  1 

A.  The  merchants  and  business  men  of  the  city  had  an  exchange  for  doing 
business,  where  they  met  daily. 

Q.  Not  a  political  association  ? 

A.  No,  sir.* 

Q.  Did  the  President  make  a  public  address  or  an  address  to  the  people  in 
St.  Louis  while  he  was  there  ? 

A.  He  made  a  speech  in  the  evening  at  the  Southern  Hotel  to  the  citizens. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  hotel  before  the  speech  was  made  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  As  one  of  the  committee  you  have  spoken  of? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Please  to  state  under  what  circumstances  the  President  was  called  upon 
to  speak  ? 

A.  I  was  in  one  of  tlie  parlors  of  the  hotel  with  the  committee  and  the  Pres- 
ident, when  some  of  the  citizens  came  in  and  asked  him  to  go  out  and  respond 
to  a  call  from  the  citizens  to  speak.     He  declined,  or  rather  said  that  he  did  not 


6  38  IMPEACHSfENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

care  to  mnke  any  speecli.  The  same  tiling  was  repeated  two  or  tliree  times  by- 
other  citizens  coming  in,  and  he  finally  said  that  he  was  in  the  hands  of  his 
friends,  or  of  the  committee,  and  if  they  said  so  he  would  go  out  and  respond 
to  the  call,  which  he  did  do. 

Q.  What  did  the  committee  say  1     Did  they  say  anything  1 
A.  A  portion  of  the  committee,  two  or  three  of  them,  said,  after  some  consul- 
tation, that  they  presumed  he  might  as  well  do  it.     There  was  a  large  crowd  of 
citizens  on  the  outside  in  front  of  the  hotel. 

Q.  Did  the  President  say  anything  before  he  went  out  as  to  whether  he  went 
out  to  make  a  long  speech  or  a  short  speech,  or  anything  to  characterize  the 
speech  he  intended  to  make  ? 

A.  My  understanding  of  it  was  that  he  did  not  care  to  make  a  speech  at  all. 

Ml".  Clrtis.  That  you  have  already  explained. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  Mr.  Able,  please  not  give  your  opinion,  but  give  facts. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 
Q.  You  have  already  explained  that  he  manifested  reluctance,  and  how  he 
manifested  it.     Now,  1  want  to  know  if  he  said  anything  as  to  his  purpose  in 
going  out  ?     If  so,  I  should  like  to  have  you  state  it,  if  you  remember. 

A.  I  understood  from  his  acceptance  that  his  intention  was  to  make  a  short 
speech  when  he  went  out. 

Q.  Did  you  or  not  hear  what  he  said,  or  were  you  in  a  position  so  that  you 
could  hear  what  he  said  1 

A.  I  heard  his  conversation  with  the  committee. 

Q.  I  do  not  mean  that ;  I  mean  after  he  went  out  and  began  to  speak  ? 
A.  Very  little  of  it. 

Q.  Was  it  a  large  crowd  or  a  small  one  ? 
A.  A  large  crowd. 

Q.  Were  you  present  ftir  enough  to  be  able  to  state  what  the  demeanor  of 
the  crowd  was  toward  the  President?. 

A.  I  heard  from  the  inside — I  was  not  oh  the  balcony  of  the  hotel  at  all ; 
but  I  heard  from  the  parlor  one  or  two  interruptions.  I  do  not  recollect  but 
one  of  them. 

Q.  You  remained  in  the  parlor  all  the  time,  I  understand  you  ? 

A.  Between  the  parlor  and  the  diniug-room,  where  the  banquet  was  spread. 

Q.  You  were  not  on  the  balcony  I 

A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butlkr  : 
Q.  You  met  the  President  at  Alton,  and  you,  yourself,  as  one  of  this  com- 
mittee, made  him  an  address  on  board  the  steamer  where  he  was  received,  did 
you  not  ? 

A.  I  introduced  him  to  the  committee  of  reception  from  St.  Louis. 
Q.  The  committee  of  reception  from  St.  Louis  met  him,  then,  ou  board  the 
steamer? 

A.  On  board  the  steamer. 

Q.  And  you  introduced  him  with  a  little  speech? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  Captain  Eads,  who  was  the  chairman  of  the  citizens  or  the  spokes- 
man of  the  citizens,  made  him  an  address,  did  he  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  An  address  of  welcome,  and  to  that  the  President  made  a  response,  did  he  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  in  that  address  he  was  listened  to  with  propriety  by  them,  as  became 
his  place  and  the  ceremony  ? 

A.  I  observed  nothing  to  the  contrary. 

Q.  You  so  supposed.     Then  you  went  to  the  Liudell  Hotel  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  639 

A.  I  did  not  go  to  the  Lindell  Hotel  at  the  time. 

Q.  The  President  went,  did  he  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  President  was  entertained  at  the  Lindell  Hotel. 

Q.  And  en.  route,  to  the  Lindell  Plotel  he  was  escorted  by  a  procession,  was 
he  not,  of  the  military  and  civic  societies  ? 

A.  From  the  landing  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q,  A  procession  of  the  benevolent  societies  ] 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  what  societies  they  were.  There  was  a  very  large  turn 
out ;  perhaps  most  of  the  societies  of  the  city  were  present. 

Q.  Were  you  at  the  Lindell  Hotel  at  all  % 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  he  got  there  he  was  received  by  the  mayor,  was  he  not  ? 

A.  I  Avas  not  there  when  he  arrived  at  the  Lindell  Hotel. 

Q.  Were  you  there  wheu  he  was  received  by  the  mayor  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  the  mayor  made  him  a  speech  of  welcome  or 
not  there  % 

A.  Only  from  what  I  saw  in  the  press. 

Q.  Nor  do  you  know  whether  the  President  responded  there  ? 

A.  I  was  not  present. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  was  this  wheu  he  got  to  the  Lindell  Hotel,  as  near 
as  you  can  say  % 

A.  It  was  in  the  afternoon  when  they  left  the  steamboat  landing.  I  do  not 
know  what  time  they  were  at  the  hotel,  because  I  was  not  present  on  their  arrival. 

Q.  Can  you  not  tell  about  what  time  they  got  there  1 

A.  Well,  it  was  probably  between  1  and  5  o'clock. 

Q.  After  that  did  you  go  with  the  President  from  the  Lindell  Hotel  to  the 
Southern  Hotel  ?  * 

A.  1  do  not  recollect  whether  I  accompanied  him  from  the  one  hotel  to  the 
other  or  not. 

Q.  He  did  go  from  the  one  to  the  other  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  was  to  be  a  banquet  for  him  and  his  suite  at  the  Southern  Hotel 
that  night,  was  there  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  which  there  was  intended  to  be  speaking  to  him  and  by  him,  I  suppose  1 

A.  There  were  to  be  toasts  and  responses ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  what  time  was  that  banquet  to  come  off"? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  exact  hour;  I  think  somewhere  about  9  o'clock. 

Q.  At  the  time  the  President  was  called  upon  b}'  the  crowd  were  you  waiting 
for  the  banquet? 

A.  When  the  President  was  called  upon  by  the  crowd  I  do  not  think  the 
banquet  was  ready.     He  was  in  the  parlors  with  the  committee  of  citizens. 

Q.  The  citizens  being  introduced  to  him,  I  suppose  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  then  went  out  on  to  the  balcony.  Did  you  hear  any  portion  of  the 
speech  ? 

A.  Only  such  portions  of  it  as  I  could  catch  from  the  inside  occasionally.  I 
did  not  go  on  to  the  balcony  at  all. 

Q.  Could  you  see  on  to  the  balcony  where  he  stood  from  where  you  were  1 

A.  I  could  see  on  to  the  balcony,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  I  could  see 
precisely  where  he  stood  or  not. 

Q.  While  he  was  making  that  speech,  and  when  he  came  to  the  sentence, 
"  I  will  neither  be  bullied  by  my  enemies  nor  overawed  by  my  friends,"  was 
there  anybody  on  the  balcony  trying  to  get  him  back  ? 

A.  I  could  hardly  answer  that  question.     I  was  not  there  to  see. 


640  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Q.  You  said  you  could  see  on  to  the  balcony,  but  you  were  not  certain  that 
you  could  see  him.     You  might  have  seen  such  an  occurrence  as  that? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  see.  Can  you  tell  whether  it  was  so  or  not,  from  your  own 
knowledge  1 

A.  I  should  think  if  I  could  not  see  it  I  could  not  tell. 

Q.  I  only  wanted  to  make  certain  upon  that  point. 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  am  positive  on  that  point. 

Q.  You  have  no  knowledge  on  the  subject.  Who  was  on  the  balconv  beside 
him  ? 

A.  I  suppose  the  balcony  will  hold  perhaps  two  hundred  people.  There  was 
a  good  many  people  on  there ;  I  could  not  tell  how  many. 

Q.  Give  me  some  one  of  the  two  hundred,  if  you  know  anybody  who  was 
there  ? 

A.  I  think  Mr.  Howe  was  there.  My  recollection  is  that  the  President 
walked  out  with  ]\Ir.  Howe. 

Q.  Was  General  Frank  Blair  there  at  any  time  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it,  if  he  was. 

Q.  Did  the  President  afterward  make  a  speech  at  the  banquet  1 

A.  A  short  one. 

Q.  Was  the  crowd  a  noisy  and  boisterous  one  after  awhile  ? 

A.  I  heard  a  good  deal  of  noise  from  the  crowd  from  where  I  stood — I  stood 
inside — or  where  I  was  moving  about,  for  I  was  not  standing  still  a  great  por- 
tion of  the  time. 

George  Knapp  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Question.  What  is  your  full  name  ? 

Answer.  George  Knapp. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  St.  Louis. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  I  am  one  of  the  publishers  and  proprietors  of  the  Missouri  Republican. 

Q.  Were  you  in  St.  Louis  at  the  time  the  President  visited  that  city  in  the 
summer  of  1866  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  Southern  Hotel  before  Mr.  Johnson  went  out  to 
make  a  speech  to  the  people  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  room  where  the  President  was  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Please  state  what  occurred  between  the  President  and  citizens,  or  the  com- 
mittee of  citizens,  in  respect  to  his  going  out  to  make  a  speech. 

A.  The  crowd  on  the  outside  had  called  repeatedly  for  the  President,  and 
some  conversation  ensued  between  those  present.  I  think  I  recollect  Captain 
Able  and  Captain  Taylor  and  myself  at  any  rate  were  together.  The  crowd 
continued  to  call.  Probably  some  one  suggested,  I  thmk  I  suggested,  that  he 
ouerht  to  e-o  out.  Some  further  conversation  occurred,  I  think,  between  him 
and  Ca]:)tain  Able 

Q.  The  gentleman  who  has  just  left  the  stand? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  Captain  Barton  Able,  and  1  think  I  said  to  him  that  Ik;  ought 
to  go  out  and  show  himself  to  the  people  <lnd  say  a  few.  words  at  any  rate. 
He  seemed  reluctant  to  go  out,  and  we  walked  out  together.  He  walked  out 
on  the  balcony,  and  we  walked  out  with  him,  and  he  commenced  addressing  the 
assembled  multitude,  as  it  seemed. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  641 

Q.  What  was  the  character  of  the  crowd  1  Was  it  a  large  crowd,  a  large 
number  of  people  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  looked  at  the  crowd.  I  do  not  think  I  got  far  enough 
on  the  balcony  to  look  on  the  magnitude  of  the  crowd.  I  think  I  stood  back 
some  distance. 

Q.  About  what  number  of  people  were  on  the  balcony  itself? 

A.  I  suppose  there  were  probably  fifteen  or  twenty ;  there  may  have  been 
twenty-five. 

Q.  Could  you  hear  the  cries  from  the  crowd  1 

A.  I  coidd  not. 

Q.  What  was  the  character  of  the  proceedings  so  far  as  the  crowd  was  con- 
cerned 1 

A.  Well,  I  do  not  recollect  distinctly.  My  impressions  are  that  occasional 
or  repeated  questions  were  apparently  put  to  the  President,  but  I  do  not  now 
exactly  recollect  what  they  were. 

Q.  Was  the  crowd  orderly  or  otherwise,  so  far  as  you  could  hear  1 

A.  At  times  it  seemed  to  be  somewhat  disorderly  ;  but  of  that  I  am  not  very 
sure. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Did  you  go  on  to  the  balcony  at  all  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  stepped  out.  It  is  a  wide  balcony ;  it  is  probably  twelve  or 
fifteen  feet;  it  covers  the  whole  of  the  side  wall.  I  stepped  out.  I  think  I 
was  probably  only  two  or  three  feet  back  of  the  President  part  of  the  time 
while  he  was  speaking.  Then  there  are  a  number  of  doors  or  windows  leading 
out  to  this  balcony.  You  could  stand  in  these  windows  or  doors  and  hear  every 
word  that  was  said. 

Q.  Did  you  listen  to  the  speech  so  as  to  hear  every  word  that  was  said  ? 

A.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  staid  during  the  whole  time.  I  listened  pretty 
attentively  to  the  speech  while  I  stood  there,  but  whether  I  stood  there  durino- 
the  whole  time  or  not  I  do  not  now  recollect. 

Q.  Yuu  told  us  there  were  from  fifteen  to  twenty  persons,  if  I  understood  you 
aright,  on  the  balcony  ? 

A.  That  is  my  impression.  I  am  not  certain  about  that,  because  I  did  not 
pay  any  attention  to  the  number. 

Q.  How  many  would  the  balcony  hold  1 

A.  I  suppose  the  balcony  would  hold  one  hundred. 

Q.  Then  it  was  not  at  all  crowded  on  the  balcony  1 

A.  I  do  'not  recollect,  I  say,  about  that,  whether  it  was  or  not.  I  did  not 
charge  my  mind  with  it,  nor  do  I  now  recollect.  The  parlors  were  full.  There 
was  a  crowd  there  waiting  to  go  into  the  banquet,  and  I  think  it  is  very  likely 
that  a  large  number  of  them  crowded  on  the  balcony  to  hear  the  speech. 
Whether  it  was  crowded  or  not  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Who- were  .present  at  the  time  so  as  to  remember  distinctly  when  he  said 
he  would  not  be  overawed  by  his  friends  or  bullied  by  his  enemies?  Do  you 
remember  that  phrase  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  it. 

Q.  This  confusion  in  the  crowd  sometimes  pi-evented  his  going  on,  did  it  not  ? 

A.^  I  think  it  likely ;  but  in  that  I  must  only  draw  from  my  present  impres- 
tion.     I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  say  anything  about  "  Judas  ;  "  do  you  remember  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  that  about  Judas  ?  Did  you  hear  him  say  anything 
about  John  Bull,  and  about  attending  to  him  after  a  while  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  as  to  the  points  of  the  speech. 

Q.  Then,  so  far  as  you  know,  all  you  know  that  would  be  of  advantage  to  us 
41  I  P 


642  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

here  is  that  you  were  present  when  some  of  the  citizens  asked  the  President  to 
go  out  and  answer  the  calls  of  the  crowd  ? 

A.  Yes ;  some  citizens  then  present  in  the  parlor  asked  him. 

Q.  While  the  banquet  was  waiting  ?  At  what  time  was  the  banquet  to  take 
place  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  to  take  place  at  eight  o'clock. 

Q.  What  time  had  this  got  to  be  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  that. 

Q.  Was  it  not  very  near  eight  o'clock  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  think  when  the  President  went  out  it  was  near  the  time  the  banquet 
was  to  take  place ;  and  I  think,  also,  I  know,  in  fact,  that  while  the  President 
was  speaking  several  persons,  in  speaking  about  it,  said  it  was  time  for  the 
banquet  to  commence,  or  something  to  that  effect. 

Q.  The  banquet  had  to  wait  for  him  while  the  crowd  outside  got  the  speech? 

A..  I  do  not  know  that. 

Q.  Was  not  that  your  impression  at  the  time  1 

A.  I  think  the  hour,  probably,  had  pa'Bsed  ;  but  in  attending  banquets  it  often 
happens  that  they  do  not  take  place  exactly  at  the  hour  fixed. 

Q.  It  appears  that  this  did  not ;  but  was  that  because  they  waited  for  the 
President  or  because  the  banquet  was  not  ready  1 

A.  I  think  it  was  because  they  waited  for  the  President. 

Q.  Did  you  publish  that  speech  the  next  morning  in  your  paper  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  was  published. 

Q.  Did  you  again  republish  it  on  Monday  morning? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  While  your  paper  is  called  the  Republican  it  is  really  the  Democrat,  and 
the  Democrat  is  the  Republican  ] 

A.  The  Republican  was  commenced  in  early  times,  for  I  have  been  connected 
with  it  over  forty  years  myself,  and  at  the  time 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  care  to  go  back  forty  years  at  tliis  time. 

The  Witness.  You  asked  why  it  was  called 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler: 

Q.  Not  why,  but  as  to  the  fact.  Was  it  in  fact  the  democratic  paper  at  that 
time  when  the  President  was  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  St.  Louis  Democrat,  so  called,  was  really  the  republican  paper? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  in  the  democratic  paper,  called  by  the  name  of  Republican,  the 
speech  was  published  on  Sunday  and  on  Monday  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  it  never  been  republished  since  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  State  whether  you  caused  an  edition  of  the  speech  to  be  cotrected  or 
Monday  morning's  publication  ? 

A.  1  met  our  principal  reporter,  j\[r.  Zider 

Q.  Please  do  not  state  what  took  place  between  you  and  your  reporter;  it  is 
only  the  fact  1  want,  not  the  conversation.     Did  you  cause  it  to  be  done  ? 

A.  I  gave  directions  to  Mr.  Zider,  after  complaining  about  the  report  of,  the 
speech 

Q.  Excuse  me;   I  have  not  asked  you  about  your  directions. 

A.  I  did.     1  giive  directions  on  reading  the  speech 

Q.  Please  answer  the  question. 

A.  Well,  I  gave  directions  to  have  it  corrected,  if  that  is  your  question. 

Q.  Were  your  directions  followed  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recidlect  the  extent  of  the  corrections.  1  never  read  the  speech 
afterward,  and  I  have  forgotten. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  643 

Q.  Did  you  ever  complain  afterward  to  any  man,  Mr.  Zider  or  any  other,  that 
the  speecli  was  not  at?  it  ought  to  be  as  it  was  published  on  Monday  morning  in 
the  llepublican  1 

**A.  1  cannot  draw  the  distinction  between  Monday  and  Sunday.  I  have 
repeatedly  spoken  of  the  imperfect  manner  in  which  I  conceived  the  speech  was 
reported  and  published  in  the  Republicafi  on  Sunday.  Whether  I  spoke  of  its 
imperfections  for  Monday  or  not  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Will  you  not  let  me  call  your  attention,  Mr.  Witness?  You  say  that  you 
directed  a  revised  publication  on  Monday,  and  it  was  so  published.  Now,  did 
you  ever  complain  after  that  revised  publication  was  made  to  anybody  that  that 
publication  was  not  a  true  one  within  the  next  three  months  following? 

A.  It  is  possible  I  might  have  complained  on  Monday  morning,  if  the  cor- 
rections were  not  made,  but  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Excuse  me ;  I  did  not  ask  for  a  possibility. 

A.  I  tell  you  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  But  it  is  possible  you  did  not  ? 

A.  That,  I  say  again,  I  cannot  recollect. 

Q'.  Now,  sii-,  will  you  say  that  in  any  important  particular  the  speech  as  pub- 
lished in  your  paper  differs  from  the  speech  as  put  in  evidence  here  1 

A.  I  could  not  point  out  a  solitary  case,  because  I  have  not  read  the  speech 
as  put  in  evidence  here,  nor  have  I  read  the  speech  since  the  morning  after  it 
was  delivered  ;  so  I  know  nothing  about  Avhat  you  have  put  in  evidence  here. 

Heney  F.  Zider  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Question.  Where  did  you  reside  in  the  summer  of  1866  when  the  President 
visited  St.  Louis  1 

Answer.  At  St.  Louis,  Missouri. 

Q.  What  was  then  your  business  ? 

A.  I  was  then  engaged  as  short-hand  writer  and  reporter  for  the  Missouri  Re- 
publican, a  paper  published  at  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Had  you  anything  to  do  with  making  a  report  of  the  speech  of  the  Presi- 
dent delivered  from  the  balcony  of  the  Southern  Hotel  ? 

A.  I  made  a  short-hand  report-  of  the  speech.  1  was  authorized  to  employ 
all  the  assistance  that  I  needed,  for  it  was  known  that  the  President  was  to  be 
received  at  St.  Louis.  I  employed  Mr.  Walbridge  and  Mr.  Allen  to  assist  me. 
Mr.  Walbridge  wrote  out  the  report  for  publication  in  the  Sunday  morning 
Republican.  I  went  over,  the  same  report  on  Sunday  afternoon  and  made 
several  alterations  in  it  for  the  Monday  morning  paper. 

Q.  The  Monday  morning  Republican  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  made  the  corrections  from  my  own  notes. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  corrections  except  those  which  you  found  were  required 
by  your  own  notes  ? 

A.  There  were  three  or  four  corrections  that  the  printers  did  not  make  that 
I  had  marked  on  the  proof  sheets  .that  I  made  on  the  paper  the  following 
morning  in  the  counting-room. 

Q.  With  those  exceptions,  did  you  make  any  corrections  except  what  were 
called  for  by  your  own  notes  ? 

A.  Those  were  called  for  by  my  own  notes. 

Q,  But  they  were  not  in  fact  made  ? 

A.  They  were  not  in  fact  made  in  the  printed  copy  on  Monday. 

Q.  Now,  answer  my  question  whether  the  corrections  were  called  for  by  your 
own  notes  ? 

A.  Oh,  yes  ;  all  of  them. 

Q.  Have  you  compared  the  report  which  you  made,  and  which  was  published 


G44  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

in  the  Republican  on  Monday,  with  the  report  published  in  the  St.  Louis 
Democrat  ? 

A.  I  have  more  particularly  compared  the  report  published  in  the  Monday 
Democrat  with  the  Sunday  Republican.  * 

Q.  You  compared  those  two  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     There  are  about  sixty 'changes. 

Mr.  JoHMSO.\.  Differences  ? 

The  WiTNLSS.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  Describe  the  character  of  those  differences. 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  "  State  the  differences."     I  object  to  that. 
Mr.  Curtis.  Do  you  want  him  to  repeat  the  sixty  differences  1 
Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Certainly  ;  it'  he  can. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q    Have  you  a  memorandum  of  those  differences  ? 
A.  I  have. 

Q.  Read  it,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Before  he  reads  it,  I  should  like  to  know  when  it  was 
made. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 
Q.  When  did  you  make  this  comparison  ? 
The  Witness.  The  exact  date  1 
Mr.  Curtis.  If  you  can  give  it  to  us. 

A.  (After  consulting  a  memorandum  book.)  Saturday,  April  11. 
Q.  When  did  you  make  the  memorandum  ? 
A.  On  the  Sunday  following. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  Last  Sunday  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  This  month? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  From  what  did  you  make  the  memorandum  ? 

A.  I  had  been  before  the  board  of  managers  twenty-four  days,  and  was  dis- 
charged and.  had  just  returned  to  St.  Louis.  I  got  telegraphic  despatches  stat- 
ing that  I  was  summoned  again  to  appear  before  the  Senate.  I  then  went  to 
the  Republican  oflice,  took  the  bound  files  of  the  Republican  and  the  bound 
files  of  ihe  Democrat  for  the  latter  part  of  1866,  and  in  company  with  Mr. 
James  Monoghan,  one  of  the  assistant  editors,  I  made  a  comparison  of  the  two 
papers,  noted  the  differences,  compared  those  differences  twice  afterward  to  see 
that  they  were  accurate.  That  was  on  Saturday.  I  started  for  AVashingtou  on 
Sunday  afternoon  at  3  o'clock,  the  first  through  train. 

Q.  When  was  this  paper  that  you  call  the  memorandum,  which  contains  the 
differences,  made  1 

A.  On  Saturday. 

Q.  Was  it  made  at  the  same  time  when  you  made  this  comparison,  or  at  a 
different  time  ? 

A.  The  same  day, 

Mr.  Curtis^.  Now,  you  can  tell  us  the  nature  of  the  differences ;  or,  if  the 
honorable  manager  desires  that  all  those  differences  should  be  read,  you  cau  read 
them. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE  PRESIDENT.  645 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  Stay  a  moment.  Any  on  wliicli  you  rely  we  should 
like  to  have  read. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  rely  on  all  of  ihcm,  more  or  less. 

Mr.  ]Manager  Butler.  Then  all  of  them,  more  or  less,  we  want  read. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  should  prefer  to  save  time  by  giving  specimens;  but  then, 
if  you  prefer  to  have  them  all  read,  we  will  have  them  read. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  There  is  a  question  back  of  this,  I  think,  and  that  is, 
that  we  have  not  the  standard  of  comparison.  Surely,  then,  this  cannot  be  evi- 
dence. This  witness  goes  to  the  Republican  office  and  there  takes  a  paper — he 
cannot  tell  whether  it  was  the  true  one  or  not,  whether  made  properly  or  not,  or 
what  edition  it  was — and  he  compares  it  with  a  copy  of  the  Democi'at,  and 
having  made  that  comparison  he  now  proposes  to  put  in  tbe  results  of  it.  I  do 
not  see  how  that  can  be  evidence.  He  may  state  anything  that  he  has  a  recol- 
lection of;  but  to  make  the  memorandum  evidence,  to  read  the  memoranduiri, 
never  was  such  a  thing  heard  of,  I  think.  Let  me  restate  it  and  I  have  done. 
He  goes  to  the  Republican  office,  gets  a  Republican ;  what  Republican,  how 
genuine,  what  edition  it  was,  is  not  identified  ;  he  says  it  was  in  a  bound  vol- 
ume. He  takes  the  Democrat,  of  what  edition  we  do  not  know,  and  compares 
that,  and  then  comes  here  and  attempts  to  put  in  the  results  of  a  comparison 
made  in  which  Monaghan  held  one  end  of  the  matter  and  he  held  the  other. 
Now,  can  that  be  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  want  to  ask  the  witness  a  question,  and  then  I  will  make  an 
observation  on  the  objection.  (To  the  witness.)  Who  made  the  report  in  the 
Republican  which  you  examined — the  one  which  you  examined  and  compared 
with  the  report  in  the  Democrat ;  who  made  that  report  f 

A.  Mr.  Walbridge  made  that  report  on  Saturday  night,  September  8,  18G6. 
It  was  published  in  the  Sunday  morning. Republican  of  September  9,  1866. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Q.  Have  you  looked  at  the  proceedings  in  this  case  to  see  whether  that  has 
been  put  in  evidence  1 

A.  The  Sunday  morning  Republican  was  mentioned  in  Mr.  Walbridge's  tes- 
timony, in  which  he  states  that  he  made  one  or  two  simple  corrections  for  the 
Monday  morning  Democrat. 

Q.  Now,  I  wish  to  inquire,  Mr.  Zider,  whether  the  report  which  you  saw  in 
the  files  of  the  Republican,  and  which  you  compai-ed  with  the  report  in  the 
Democrat,  was  the  report  which  Mr.  Walbridge  made  1 

A.  Undoubtedly  it  was. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  it  is  suggested  by  the  learned  mana- 
ger  

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  save  you  all  trouble.  You  may  put  it  in  as 
much  as  you  choose.  I  do  not  care,  on  reflection,  if  you  leave  it  unread.  It 
is  of  no  consequence. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  will  simply  put  it  into  the  case  to  save  time,  and  have  it 
printed. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  think  there  should  not  be  anything  printed  that  is 
not  read.     We  have  got  a  very  severe  lesson  upon  that. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  understood  you  to  dispense  with  the  reading. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  the  honorable  manager  desires  to  have  the  paper 
read  it  will  be  read. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  desire  it  to  be  read. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Is  it  to  go  in  as  evidence,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  or  not? 

The  Chief  Justice.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  may  go  in  for  aught  I  care. 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Zider. 

The  paper  thus  admitted  iu  evidence,  containing  a  memorandum  of  the  dif- 


646 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


ferences  between  the  two  reports  of  President  Johnson's  speech  at  St.  Louis,  is 
as  follows  : 


Sunday  Republican,  September  9,  18GG. 

I  am 

Questions  which 

that  we  have 

as  thin  we  have 

that  they  then  knew 

its  potter  having  expired 

of  /\  population 

without  the  will  of  the  people 

/\  then  when 

it  tiocs  not  provoke  me 

things  that  have  been  done 

that  were  intended 

to  be  enforced  upon 

abandoned  the  party 

that  I  was  a  traitor 

Judas  Iscariot  /\ 

a  traitor 

Judas  Iscariot !  Judas  ! 

the  twelve  apostles 

he  never  coidd  have 

and  that  try  to  stay 

Avhen  there  loere 

there  was  a  Christ 

there  were  unbelievers 

to-day  tiho  would 

A 

for  years 
bear  all  the  expenses 


A 

Yes,  yes, 

A  a  decided  majority 

What  ? 

Stimulating  this 

So  far  as  offences  are  conarned 

Upon  this  subject  of  offences 

and  battled  more  for 

It  has  been  my  peculiar  misfortune  A 

to  have  fierce  opposition 

(a  voice,  why  didn't  you  do  it) 

The  law  was  executed. 

The  law  was  executed, 

to  give  somebody  else  a  bounty 

he  can  get  $50  bounty 

{Great  cheering) 

are  /\  entitled  to 

equal  rej)reseutation  in  the 

Congress  of  the  United 

States  without  violating 
the  Constitution.    CCheers.) 

Among  this  people.     I 

have 
labored  for  it  I  am  for  it 

now.     I  deny 

manner  pointed  out  by 

and  sometimes  havingA 

re- 
pented nuikes  him  a  bettor 
man  than  he  was 
before 
Yes,  I  liave, 
Yes  I  have. 
(Voice  "bully  for  you  "A 
and  cheers) 
on  either  side 


Democrat,  Monday,  September  10,  1S66. 

I  icas 

Questions  that 

/\  we  have 

as  those  we  have 

that  they  there  knew 

its  powers  having  expired 

of  the  population 

without  the  consent  oi'  the  people. 

And.  then  when 

it  donU  provoke  me 

things  that  has  been  done 

that  was  intended 

to  be  enforced  on 

abandoned  the  power 

that  I  \yas  a  tr-a-i-t-o-r 

Judas — Judas  Iscariot    • 

a  t-r-a-i-t-o-r 

Judas,  Judas  Iscariot,  Jud-a-a-s 

and  these  twelve  apostles 

he  couldnH  have 

and  A  tiy  to  stay 

when  there  inare 

there  icure  a  Christ 

there  icnre  unbelievers 

to-day  A  would 

Now  what  is  the  jjlau  ? 

four  years 

bear  all  the  expense, 

So  much  for  this  question. 

I'-ff-s,   Y-a-s; 

as  decided  a  majority 

]Vha-t  / 

elevating  themselves 

So  far  as  the  Fenians  are  concerned 

Upon  this  subject  of  Fenians, 

and  sacrificed  more  for 

It  has  been  my  peculiar  misfortune  always 

to  have  fierce  opposition 

A 


to  vote  somebody  else  a  bounty 
A  ^^^^  S^^  'S'^'O  bounty, 
{Loud  cheernig) 
are  constitutionally  entitled  to 
equal  suti'rage  in  the 
Senate  and  no  power  has 
the 
right   to  deprive  them  of  it 
Avithout  violating  the  Consti- 
tution.    ^^Clleers.) 
Among  the  people.     I  have 

labored  for  it.     Now  I 

deny, 
manner  pointed  A  '^.V 
and  sometimes  having 
sinned  and  having  re- 
pented 
makes  him  a  better  man 
than  he  was  before 
Y-a-s,  I  liavo 
Y-a-s,  I  have 
Voice  (bully  for  you  old 
filiate  and  laughter) 
on  the  other  side 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


647 


a  kiud  of  over-rigliteous- 

IH'SS 

— over  righteousness — 

better 
than  anybody  else  and 

att/iouirli  wantiiic^ 

Jle  went  upon  the  eioss 

and  there  was  A  nailed  by 

unbelievers^  and  there 

shed 

his  blood  that  you  and  I 

might  live  (cheers) 


nor  the  judgeV 

I  know  there  are  some 
that  talk 
And  manage  all  the 
afi'airs  of  state 
The  people  of  Missouri 
as  well  as  other  States 
know  that  all  my 
efforts  have 
all  this 
traduction  and  de- 
traction that  hare 
let  us  fight  the  enemies 
And  in  parting  with 
you  now  /  leave  the 
government  in  your 
hands 

recognized. 


a  kind  of  ovcm'  righteous- 
ness— better  thiin  any- 
body els(>  and  alicnys 
wanting. 
He  went  upon  the  cross  and 
there  was  painfully  nailed 
by 
these  unbelievers  that  I 

have  spoken  of  lure  to-nii;ht 
and  there  shed  his  l)lood 
that  you  and  I  might  live 

(cheers) 

nor  the  judge  ("vuice  "nor 

the  Moses.") 

I  know  there  is  some 

that  talk 

And  manage  /\  the 

atfairs  ot    state. 

The  people  of  Missouri 

as  well  as  other  States 

know  that  A  my  efforts 

have 

all  this  traduction 

and  detraction  that 

has 

let  us  fight  A  enemies 

And  in  parting  with 

you  now  A  leave  the 

government  in  your 

hands, 

re-co£-nized. 


Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  troubled  with  your  unfortunate  affliction  ? 

A.  To  what  do  you  refer"? 

Q.  I  understood  you  were  a  little  deaf.     Is  that  so  ? 

A.  I  have  been  sick  the  greater  part  of  this  year,  and  was  compelled  to  come 
here  a  month  ago  almost,  before  I  was  able  to  come.     I  have  not  got  well  yet. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  my  question] 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  deaf,  if  you  have  been  deaf  at  all  1 

A.  Partially  deaf  for  the  last  two  years,  I  should  think. 

Q.  About  what  time  did  it  commence  1 

A.  I  cannot  state  that. 

Q.  As  near  as  you  can.     You  know  when  you  became  deaf,  do  you  not  ? 

A.  I  know  I  was  not  deaf  when  you  made  your  St.  Louis  speech,  in  1866. 

Q.  That  is  a  very  good  date  to  reckon  from  ;  but  as  these  gentlemen  do  not 
all  know  when  that  was,  and  you  and  I  do,  suppose  you  try  it  by  the  almanac, 
and  tell  us  when  that  was  1 

A.  That  was  on  the  13th  of  October,  1866. 

Q.  You  were  not  deaf  then  ? 

A.  No 

Q.  How  soon  after  that  did  you  become  deaf  ? 

A.  Perhaps  a  month.     [Laughter.] 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  it  Avas  not  at  that  time  1 

A.  Quite  sure  it  was  not  that  time,  because  I  heard  some  remarks  the  crowd 
made  which  you  did  not.     [Laughter.] 

Q.  I  have  no  doubt  you  heard  very  much  that  I  did  not.  Now,  suppose  we 
confine  ourselves  to  this  matter.     About  a  month  after  that  you  became  deaf? 


648  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  Partially. 

Q.  Partially  deaf,  as  now  ? 

A.  I  recovered  from  that  sickness.  I  became  sick  again  the  first  part  of  this 
year. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  have  the  kindness  to  state  whether  you  have  your  notes  ? 

The  Witness.  Of  the  President's  speech? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  them  last  ? 

A.  The  last  recollection  1  have  of  them  is  when  Mr.  Walbridge  was  sum- 
moned before  the  Reconstruction  Committee  to  give  testimony  on  the  New 
Orleans  riot. 

Q.  Did  you  and  he  then  go  over  that  speech  together? 

A.  We  went  over  only  a  part  of  it. 

Q.  The  part  that  referred  to  New  Orleans  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  the  part  that  referred  to  New  Orleans  you  went  over  with  him  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  there  any  material  difference  between  you  and  him  when  you  had 
your  notes  together  in  that  part  of  the  speech,  and  if  so,  state  what  ? 

A.  There  was. 

Q.  What  was  it? 

A.  He  asked  me  to  compare  notes  with  him 

Q.  Excuse  me;  I  am  not  asking  what  he  said.  I  am  asking  what  difference 
there  was  between  your  report  and  his  report  upon  that  comparison ;  what 
material  difference. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  I  submit,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  that  as  he  is  asked  the  precise 
question  what  the  difference  was  that  arose  upon  that  comparison,  he  is  to  be 
permitted  to  state  what  it  was  and  how  it  arose. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  not  asked  any  difference  that  arose  between 
him  and  Mr.  Walbridge.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  go  into  that.  I  have  asked 
what  the  difference  was  between  the  two  speeches. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  As  it  appeared  in  that  comparison. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  As  found  at  that  time. 

The  Witness.  That  is  what  I  was  going,  to  answer.  If  you  will  possess 
your  soul  in  patience  a  moment  I  will  answer. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  witness  will  confine  himself  entirely  to  what  is 
asked  and  make  no  remarks. 

The  WiTNEoS.  When  we  proceeded  to  compare  that  part  relating  to  the  New 
Orleans  riot,  Mr.  Walbridge  read  from  his  notes ;  I  looked  on,  and  when  he 
came  to  this  passage,  as  near  as  I  can  remember,  "  AVhen  you  read  the 
speeches  that  were  made,  and  take  up  the  facts,  if  they  are  as  stated,  you  will 
find  that  speeches  were  made  incendiary  in  their  character,  exciting  that  popu- 
lation called  the  black  j)opulation  to  take  up  arms  and  prepare  for  the  shedding 
of  blood,"  I  called  Mr.  AValbridge's  attention  to  the  (qualifying  words,  "if  the 
facts  are  as  stated."  lie  replied  to  me,  "You  are  mistaken;  I  know  I  am 
right,"  and  went  on.  As  he  was  summoned  to  swear  to  his  notes,  and  not  to 
mine,  I  did  not  argue  the  question  with  him  further,  but  let  him  go  on. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  What  other  difference  was  there  ? 

A.  There  was  another  diff<'rence. 

Q.  In  the  New  Orleans  matter? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  President's  words,  I  think,  were  that  they  there  knew  a 
convention  was  to  be  called  which  was  extinct  by  reason  of  its  power  having 
expired.     There  was  a  difference  in  the  words  "by  reason  of.'' 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  649 

Q.  What  was  that  differonce  ? 

A.  The  words  "  by  reason  of." 

Q.  Were  they  in  or  out  of  Walbridge's  report  ? 

A.  They  were  in  my  report. 

Q.  And  were  not  in  Walbridge's  report  ? 

A.  They  were  not. 

Q.  Any  other  difference  ? 

A.  No  other.  That  was  as  f;ir  as  we  proceeded  with  the  report  as  1o  the 
New  Orleans  riot.  The  latter  part  of  the  report  was  not  compared  at  all,  nor 
was  the  first  part. 

Q.  Now,  have  you  the  report  as  it  appeared  in  the  Republican  of  Monday 
morning  before  you  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Let  me  read  the  first  few  sentences  of  the  report  put  in  evidence,  and  tell 
me  how  many  errors  there  are  in  that.     Have  you  it  1 

A.  [The  witness  produced  a  new  paper.]     Yes,  sir  ;   I  have  it. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  read  from  the  report  put  in  evidence  here  : 

Fellow-citizens  of  St.  Louis  :  In  being  introduced  to  you  to-night,  it  is  not  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  speech.  It  is  true  I  am  proud  to  meet  so  many  of  my  fellow-citizens  here  ou 
this  occasion,  and  under  the  favorable  circumstances  that  I  do.  [Cry,  "How  about  British 
subjects?"]  We  will  attend  to  John  Bull  after  a  while,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned.  [Laugh- 
ter and  loud  cheers.]  I  have  just  stated  that  I  was  not  here  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
speech." 

The  WjTNES.^i.  "Afn  not  here." 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  The  difference  is  here  "  I  was,"  and  there  "  I  am." 
Now,  do  you  know  that  the  President  used  the  word  "  am"  instead  of  "  was  ?" 
A.  Of  course  I  do. 
Q.  I  will  read  on  : 

I  was  not  here  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  speech ;  but  after  being  introduced,  simply  to 
tender  my  cordial  thanks  for  the  welcome  you  have  given  me  in  your  midst.  [A  voice, 
"Ten  thousand  welcomes;"  hurrahs  and  cheers.]  Thank  you,  sir.  I  wish  it  was  in  my 
power  to  address  you  under  favorable  circumstances  upon  some  of  the  questions  that  agitate 
and  distract  the  public  mind  at  this  time" 

A.  "  Questions  which  agitate." 

Q.  "  Which  agitate"  instead  of  "  that  agitate  ?" 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  then  it  goes  on  : 

Questions  that  have  grown  out  of  a  fiery  ordeal  we  have  just  passed  tlirough,  and  which  I 
think  as  impo«tant  as  those  we  have  just  passed  by.  The  time  has  come  when  it  seems  to 
me  that  all  ought  to  be  prepared  for  peace — the  rebellion  being  suppressed,  and  the  shedding 
of  blood  being  stopped,  the  sacrifice  of  life  being  suspended  and  stayed,  it  seems  that  the 
time  has  arrived  when  we  should  have  peace ;  when  the  bleeding  arteries  should  be  tied  up. 
[A  voice,  "New  Orleans;"  "Goon."] 

It  is  so  far  all  right  except  those  two  corrections  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  we  will  try  another  part. 

The  Witness.  Go  over  the  New  Orleans  part,  if-you  please,  I  wish  to  make 
a  correction  in  that''part. 

Q.  Are  you  dealing  with  a  memorandum  ? 

A.  It  is  the  official  proceedings. 

Q.  You  are  comparing  yourself  with  the  official  proceedings  as  you  go  on, 
where  you  have  noted  these  corrections  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  in  the  official  proceedings. 

Q.  Then  you  are  going  on  with  a  copy  of  the  official  proceedings  and  noting 
the  differences  1 

A.  Yes  ;  but  I  can  make  the  memoranda  Avithout  the  official  proceedings  before 
me.  Do  you  want  it  ?  (Offering  the  printed  official  report  of  the  trial,  with 
manuscript  corrections,  to  the  honorable  manager.) 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No;  I  do  not  care  for  it.     You  told  me  that  you  wished 


650  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

I  should  go  on  MiLh  tlie  New  Orleans  part.     AVliy   do  you  wish   anything 
about  it  ? 

The  WiTMKSS.  You  were  proceeding-  to  make  corrections,  and  when  you 
came  to  the  New  Orleans  part  you  stopped. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.   Well,  I  will  take  this  portion  of  it 

The  Witness.  Any  portion.        , 

Q.  "  Judaas,  Judas  Iscariot,  Judaas  1" 

A.  One  Judas  too  many  there.     [Laughter.] 

Q.  "  There  was  a  Judas  once,"  You  are  sure  he  did  not  speak  Judas  four 
times,  are  you  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  times  did  he  speak  it  ? 

A.  Please  read  it  again. 

Q.  I  asked  how  many  times  he  did  speak  Judas  1 

A.  Three  times. 

Q.  Well,  I  believe  we  have  got  "  Judaas,  Judas  Iscariot,  Judaas."  That  is 
only  three  times.     Why  did  you  say  one  too  many  1 

A.  You  have  it  four  times  there. 

Q.  I  beg  your  pardon.  I  have  only  said  it  three  times.  "  Judaas,  Judas 
Iscariot,  Judaas." 

The  Witness.  Are  not  those  words  italicised  there? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Witness.  Are  they  not  stretched  out  to  make  it  appear  ridiculous  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  really  think  two  of  the  Judases  are  spelt  with  the 
pronunciation — "  J-u-d-a-a-s." 

The  Witness.  Yes,  and  italicised. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  President  did  not, speak  those  words  with 
emphasis  ? 

A.  I  mean  to  say  that  he  did  not  speak  them  in  that  way. 

Q.  I  read  : 

There  was  a  Judas  once,  one  of  the  twelve  apostles.  Oh  !  yes,  and  these  twelve  apostles 
had  a  Christ.  [A  voice,  "  And  a  IMoses,  too."  Great  laug^hter.]  The  twelve  apostles  had 
a  Christ,  and  he  could  not  have  had  a  Judas  unless  he  had  had  twelve  apostles. 

See  if  I  am  right. 

A.  The  word  "  yes"  should  not  be  stretched  out  with  dashes  between  each 
letter,  as  there. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  "yes"  isnot  here  stretched  out.  Is  there  any 
other  question  you  would  like  to  ask  me,  sir  ?     [Laughter.] 

The  Witness.  All  I  wish  is  that  you  shall  read  it  as  it  is  there. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Now,  sir,  will  you  attend  to  your  business  and  see 
what  differences  therq  are  as  I  read  ? 

If  I  have  played  the  Judas,  Avho  has  beeu  my  Christ  that  I  have  played  the  Judas  with  ? 
Was  it  Thad.  Stevens?  Was  it  Wendell  riiillips?  Was  it  Ciiarles  Sumner?  [Hisses  and 
cheers.]  An;  these  tlio  men  that  set  tip  and  compare  themselves  witji  the  Saviour  of  men, 
and  everybody  that  ditters  with  them  in  opinion,  and  try  to  stay  «fc  arrest  their  diabolical 
and  nefarious  policy,  is  to  be  denounced  as  a  Judas. 

A.  "And  that  try."  ' 

Q.  "  Differ  with  them  in  opinion,  and  ///ai  try  to  stay  and  arrest  their 
diabolical  and  nefarious  policy,  is  to  be  denounced  as  a  Judas.  ['  Hurrah  for 
Andy,'  and  cheers."]     Am  I  right  so  far,  sir? 

A.  I  think  80. 

Q.  Is  that  a  fair  specimen  of  the  sixty  corrections  1 

A.  There  are  four  in  the  next  three  lines. 

Q.  Is  that  a  fair  specimen  of  the  sixty  corrections  ?     Answer  the  question. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  suppose  the  corrections,  the  whole  of  which 
we  have  put  in  evidence,  will  show  for  themselves. 


IMPEA.CHMENT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  G51 

Mr.  ^[auager  Butlrr.  I  am  cross-exainininj>-  the  witupss. 

Mr.  EvAiiTS.  It  has  nothing  to  do  witli  the  matter  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  asking  a  question  of  the  witness  on  cross-exam- 
ination, ;ind  I  prefer  that  he  shouhl  not  be  instructed. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  No  instruction.  We  thought  we  should  save  time  by  putting 
in  the  memorandum  ;  but  it  seems  that  the  cross-examination  is  to  go  over  every 
item.  We  insist  that  it  be  confined  to  questions  that  are  proper.  Whether  this 
is  a  fair  specimen  or  not,  compared  with  the  whole  paper,  Avill  appear  by  the 
comparison  the  coiu-t  make  between  the  two  pieces  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlbr.  I  am  testing  the  credibility  of  this  witness,  and  I  do 
not  care  to  have  him  instructed. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  the  question  is  objected  to,  the  honorable  manager 
will  please  put  it  in  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  1  will  put  it  in  Avriting  if  the  Chief  Justice  desires. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  no  question  of  credibility  ;  it  is  a  mere  question  of  ju-dg- 
ment  asked  of  him  between  two  papers,  whether  one  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the 
other. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  I  will  put  the  question  in  writing  if  the  Chief  Justice 
desires.  The  question  is  this  :  whether  all  the  corrections  which  you  have  indi- 
cated in  answer  to  my  questions  are  of  the  same  average  character  with  the  other 
corrections  of  the  sixty  i 

The  Witness.  There  are  two  or  three  corrections  in  that  which  you  have 
read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Is  the  question  objected  to  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  object  to  the  question.  It  requires  a  re-examination  of  the 
whole  subject. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  will  be  put  in  writing,  objection  being 
made. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  pass  from  that  rather  than  take  time,  because 
I  shall  be  accused  of  having  taken  up  too  much  time.  (To  the  witness.)  Mr. 
Witness,  you  have  told  us  that  in  the  next  few  lines  there  were  corrections,  I 
think  four  in  the  next  three  lines.     Now  I  will  read  the  succeeding  lines  : 

In  the  days  when  there  ware  twelve  apostles  and  when  there  ware  a  Christ,  while  there 
ware  Judases,  there  ware  unbelievers,  too.  ,Y-a-s;  while  there  were  Judases,  there  ware 
unbelievers.  [Voices:  "Hear."  "Three  groans  for  Fletcher."]  Yes,  oh  yes !  unbelievers 
in  Christ. 

The  Witness.  Do  you  wish  me  to  make  corrections  there  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  want  you  to  stop  me  when  there  is  anything  wrong. 

The  Witness.  "la  the  days  when  there  ware  ;"  we?-e  is  right. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  reads  in  mine  "  zvare,"  and  in  yours  it  reads  "  we?-e  ?" 

A.  Yes;  and  then  in 'the  next  line  there  is  a  "ware"  again.  It  should  be 
"  were." 

Q.  What  is  the  next? 

A.  There  is  another  "  ware." 

Q,  That  is,  it  should  be  "  were  "  instead  of  "  tvare  ?" 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Those  are  the  three  corrections  you  want  to  make  there?  Are  those  the 
only  corrections  there  ? 

A.  Then  there  is  one  before  "  lanbelievers." 

Q.  What  is  it? 

A.  "  Were  "  for  "  ware." 

Q.  Are  those  all  ? 

The  WiTNE.<s.  Does  it  read  in  yours  "Voices,  'Hear!'  'Three  groans  for 
Fletcher?'" 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir.  It  is  all  right,  is  it  not?  What  is  the  trouble 
with  that  ? 

The  Witness.  There  are  four  "  wares  "  there,  are  there  not  ? 


652  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  wares  V  "We  have  corrected 
the  "  e"  for  the  "  a ;"  that  is  the  whole  change. 

The  witness.  Yours  reads  "  there  icare  a  Christ ;"  the  "  tcare"  should  be 
"was.'' 

Q.  Then  all  your  corrections  are  of  pronunciation  and  grammar,  are  they  not  1 

A.  The  President  did  not  use  those  words. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  the  President  does  not  pronounce  "  tcere"  broadly,  as  is 
sometimes  the  southern  fashion  ? 

A.  I  say  that  he  did  not  use  it  as  used  in  that  paper. 

Q.  Did  he  not  speak  broadly  the  word  "  were"  when  he  used  it  ? 

A.  Not  so  that  it  could  be  distinguished  for  "  ware." 

Q.  Then  it  is  a  matter  of  how  you  would  spell  pronunciation  that  you  want  to 
correct,  is  it  ? 

A.  The  tone  of  voice  cannot  be  represented  in  print. 

Q.  And  still  you  think  "  were'''  best  represents  his  tone  of  voice,  do  you  ] 

A.  I  think  it  did. 

Q.  Although  it  cannot  be  represented  in  print.  Now,  sir,  with  the  exception 
of  these  corrections  in  pronunciation  and  grammar,  is  there  any  correction  as 
the  speech  was  printed  in  the  Democrat  on  Monday  from  that  which  was 
printed  in  the  Republican  % 

A.  Of  what  date  ? 

Q.  The  Republican  of  Sunday. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Or  of  Monday  ?  With  the  exception  of  corrections  of  grammar  and  pro- 
nunciation, is  there  any  correction  of  substance  between  the  two  reports  as 
printed  that  morning  ? 

A.  Specify  which  papers  you  want  compared,  the  Sunday  Republican  and 
Monday  Democrat,  or  the  Monday  Republican  and  Monday  Democrat? 

Q.  The  Monday  Republican  and  Monday  Democrat. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  ai-e  they  as  printed  ? 

A.  One  is  "  Let  the  government  be  restored.  I  have  labored  for  it.  I  am 
for  it  now.     I  deny  this  doctrine  of  secession,  come  from  what  quarter  it  may." 

Q.  What  is  the  change  as  printed  1 

A.  "  Let  the  government  be  restored.  I  have  labored  for  it."  So  f^ir  it  is 
the  same  in  both  papers ;  and  then  the  words  "I  am  for  it  now  "  are  omitted  in 
the  Democrat,  and  the  punctuation  is  changed  so  as  to  begin  the  next  sentence 
"Now,  I  deny  this  doctrine  of  secession,"  and  then  words  are  omitted  and  the 
punctuation  changed. 

Q.  There  are  four  words  omitted,  "  I  am  for  it  "  before  "  now."     What  else  'i 

A.  Speaking  of  the  neutrality  law  he  said,  "  I  am  sworn  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution and  to  execute  the  law."  Some  one  holloed  out  "  Why  didn't  you  do 
it?"  and  he  answered,  "The  law  was  executed  ;  the  law  was  executed."  Those 
words  "  Why  didn't  you  do  it,"  and  "  The  law  was  executed  ;  the  law  was  exe- 
cuted," are  omitted  in  the  Democrat. 

Q.  What  else  of  substance  ? 

A.  1  do  not  know  that  I  can  point  out  any  othei'S  without  the  memorandum. 

Q.  Use  the  memorandum  to  point  out  substance,  not  grammar,  not  punctu- 
ation, not  pronunciation. 

A.  (Referring  to  the  memorandum.)  One  expression  he  used  was,  "  Allow 
me  to  ask  if  there  is  a  man  here  to-night  who  in  the  dark  days  of  Know-Noth- 
ingism  stood  and  battled  more  for  their  rights" 

Q.  What  is  the  word  left  out  w  put  in  there? 

A.  The  word  "sacrificed"  is  used  in  the  Democrat,  and  the  word  "battled" 
is  the  one  that  was  employed. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  1  will  not  trouble  you,  further,  sir. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  G53 

The  Witness.  Oh,  I  can  point  out  more. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  all,  sir. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  now  desire,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  to  put  in  evidence  a  docu- 
ment certified  from  the  Department  of  State. 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  managers.) 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  state  the  object  of  this  evidence. 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  is  the  commission  issued  by  President  Adams  to  General 
Washington,  constituting  him  lieutenant  general  of  the  army  of  the  United 
States.  The  purpose  is  to  show  the  form  in  which  commissions  were  issued  at 
that  date  to  high  military  officers,  and  we  have  selected  the  most  conspicuous 
instance  in  our  history  as  regards  the  person,  the  office,  and  the  occasion. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  There  were  two  commissions  issued  to  General  Wash- 
ington, two  appointments  made.  Was  this  the  one  he  accepted,  or  the  one  he 
rejected;  do  you  remember ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  understood  it  to  be  the  one  actually  issued  and  received  by 
him. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  And  accepted  by  him? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  suppose  so. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  understand  so. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  desire  to  have  the  commission  read. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  see  no  objection  to  it.  I  thought  perhaps  you  could 
tell  me  what  I  inquired  about. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Will  the  clerk  be  good  enough  to  read  it? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  paper. 

The  chief  clerk  read  the  following  commission,  which  is  accompanied  by  a 
certificate  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  that  it  is  a  carefully  compared  and  exact 
copy  of  the  original  on  file  in  his  department : 

John  Adams,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  all  who  shall  see  these  presents, 

greeting  : 

Know  ye,  that  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  the  patriotism,  valor,  fidelity,  and 
abilities  of  George  Washington,  I  have  nominated  and,  bj-  and  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate,  do  appoint  him  lieutenant  general  and  commander-in-chief  of  all  the  armies 
raised  or  to  be  raised  for  the  service  of  the  United  States.  He  is  therefore  carefully  and  dili- 
gently to  discharge  the  duty  of  lieutenant  general  and  commander-in-chief,  by  doing  and 
performing  all  manner  of  things  thereunto  belonging.  And  I  do  strictly  charge  and  require 
all  officers  and  soldiers  under  his  command  to  be  obedient  to  his  orders  as  lieutenant  general 
and  commander-in-chief.  And  he  is  to  observe  and  follow  such  orders  and  directions  from 
time  to  time  as  he  shall  receive  from  me  or  the  future  President  of  the  United  States  of 
America.  Tliis  commission  to  continue  in  force  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  for  the  time  being. 

Given  under  my  hand  at  Philadelphia,  this  4th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1798, 
and  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States. 

[SEAL.]  JOHN  ADAMS. 

By  command  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America: 

JAMES  McHENRY, 
'  Secretary  of  IVar. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  now  desire,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  to  put  in  a  document  from  the 
Department  of  the  Interior,  showing  the  removals  of  superintendents  of  Indian 
affairs,  and  of  Indian  agents,  of  land  officers,  receivers  of  public  moneys,  sur- 
veyors general,  and  certain  miscellaneous  officers  who  are  not  brought  under 
any  one  of  those  classes.  The  document  which  I  hold  shows  the  date  of  the 
removal,  the  name  of  the  officer,  the  office  he  held,  and  also  contains  a  memo- 
randum whether  the  removal  was  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate  or  in  the  ses- 
sion of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have  but  one  objection  to  this  species  of  evidence 
without  anybody  brought  here  to  testify  to  it,  and  that  is  this  :  I  have  learned 
that  in  the  case  of  the  Treasury  Department,  which  I  allowed  to  come  in  Avithout 
objection,  there  were  other  cases  not  reported  where  the  power  was  refused  to 


654 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


be  exercised.  I  do  not  kuow  whether  it  is  so  in  the  Interior  Department  or  not. 
But  most  of  these  cases,  upon  our  examination,  appear  to  be  simply  under  the 
law  fixing  their  tenure  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President  for  the  time  being, 
and  somQ  of  then!  are  inferior  officers  originally  made  appointable  by  the  heads 
of  departraeats.  If  the  presiding  officer  thinks  they  have  any  bearing  we  have 
no  objection. 

Mr.  Cl  RTis.  I  understand  the  matter  of  the  application  of  the  law  to  these 
offices  somewftat  differently  from  that  which  is  stated  by  the  honorable  manager. 
I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  minutely  to  examine  these  lists,  for  they  were 
only  handed  to  me  this  morning ;  but  I  understand  that  a  very  large  number 
of  these  officers  held  for  a  fixed  tenure  of  four  years.  That,  however,  must  be 
a  matter  of  argument  hereafter. 

Mr.  JNIanager  Butler.  What  class  of  officers  do  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  Curtis.  Receivers  of  public  moneys  is  one  of  the  classes. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  is  the  date  of  the  first  removal  and  of  the  last  ? 

Mr.  Ci'RTis.  These  tables,  I  think,  extend  through  the  whole  period  of  the 
existence  of  that  department.  I  do  not  remember  the  date  when  the  depart- 
ment was  established,  but  I  think  they  run  through  the  whole  history  of  the 
department. 

The  Chief  Justice.  No  objection  is  made  to  the  reception  of  this  document 
in  evidence. 

The  document  is  as  follows  : 

Department  of  the  Ixterior, 

Washington,  D.  C,  April  17,  1868. 
I,  Orville  H.  Browning^,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  annexed 
thirteen  sheets  contain  full,  true,  complete,  and  perfect  transcripts  from  the  records  of  this 
department,  so  far  as  the  same   relate   to  the  removals  from  office  of  the  persons  thertiu 
named. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the 
department  to  be  affixed  the  day  and  year  above  written.  . 
[L.  s.]  O.  H.  BROWNING,  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 


A. — Removals  of  superintendents  of  Indian  affairs  and  of  Indian  agents. 


Marclil3.  184S 

June  9,  18(56 

April  18,  1853 

March  13,  1857 

March  27,  18til 

October  29,  ISGfi 

Aprils,  1853 

March  3,  1855 

March  17,  1857 

April  1,  1861 

March  16,  1863 

March  3,  1865 

March  17,  1866 

August  9,  1866 

March  31,  1854 

April  10,  1861 

Augu«t  10,  1863 

March  22,  1865 •.... 

March  17.  ly.53 

Juni:  — ,  18.56 

March  22,  18.59 

June  30,  1861 

March  28,  1863 

July  16,  1861 

March  6,  1862 

March  30,  1864 

September  25,  1866 

April  18,  1853 

March  25,  1861 

AprillS,  1867 

May  27,  1861 

Septcuibcr  7,  1865 

*  During  the 


Thomas  P.  Harvey  . . 

W.  H.  Albin 

Ellas  Murray 

Francis  Huebschman 

W.  J.  Ciillen 

E.  B.  Taylor 

John  Dreeraan 

Thomas  .S.  Di'cw 

C.  W.  Dean 

Elias  Rector 

J.  L.  Collins 

M.ichael  .Steck 

Filipe  Delgado 

G.  W.  Leihy 

E.  F.  Beale 

A.  T>.  Rightniire 

G.  M.  Hanson 

Austin  Wiley 

Anson  Dart 

Joel  Palmer 

J.  W.  Ncsniith 

K.  R.  Geary 

W.  H.  Rector 

W.  W.  Miller 

n.  P.  Kendall 

C   H.  Hale 

W.  H.  Waterman 

W.  P.  Richardson 

Daniel  Vanderslico. .. 

R.  W.  Turuus 

C.  H.  Mix 

St.  A.  D.  lialcombe  . . 


Office. 


Superintendent  at  Saint  Louis,  Missouri.* 

Central  superintendency.* 

North  superintendency.* 

North  superinteudeucj'.* 

North  superintendency.* 

North  superintendency.* 

South  superintendency. t 

South  superintendency.* 

South  superintendency.* 

South  superintendency.* 

New  Me.xico  superintendency.* 

New  Mexico  superintendency. t 

New  Mexico  superintendeucy.t 

Arizona  supi-rintemleney.* 

California  superintendency. t 

Southern  Distriet  California  superintendency. 

North  District  California  superintendency.* 

North  District  California  superintendency.* 

Oregon  superintendency.! 

Oregon  superinlendency.t 

Oregon  superiiiti'udency.* 

Oregon  superintendency.* 

Oregon  superintendeucy.t 

Washington  Territory  superintendency.! 

Washington  Territorj'  superintendency. t 

Washington  Territory  superinlendency.t 

Washington  Territory  superintendency.* 

Creut  Nenialia  agency.* 

Great  Nemaha  ageucy.1 

Omaha  agency. t 

Wiiniebugo  agency. t 

Winnebago  agency.* 


recess. 


t  Senate  consented  to  appointment  of  his  successor. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A. — Removals  of  su-perintendcnts,  &fc. — Coutiuued. 


655 


April  29,  ISfil '. 

March  16,  lHfi2 

August  13,  1856 

Septprabcr  11,  1857.. 

March  23,  1861 

September  20,  1864.. 

January  4,  1866 

April  27,  1859 

April  18,  186L 

Juue  3,  ]858 

May  7,  1864 , 

March  16,  1865 

March  27,  1861 

April  18,  1864 

June  3,  1858 

March  13,  1859 

April  3,  1858 

April  15,  1861 

October—,  1850 

April  14,  1862 

Augusta,  1866 

May29,  1849 

Aprils,  1861 

•March  6,  1862  

September  25,  1866... 

April  18,  1853 

July  31,  1861 

August  22,  1866 

March  16,  1865 

July  6,  1858 

July  26,  I860 

April  19,  1861 

March  6,1  862 

April  5,  1849 

April  18,  1853 

Aprils,  1861 

April  16,  1861 . . 

June  9,  1865 

March  11, 1852  . 


James  L.  Gillis 

11.  W.  DePuy 

K.  G.  Murphy 

Charles  E.  Flanders. 
Joseph  'R.  Brown  . . . 

W.  W.  Ross 

William  Daily 

R.  C.  Miller 

M.  C.  Dickey 

Royal  Baldwin 

C.  D.  Keith 

Abram  Bennett 

Thomas  B.  Sykes... 

Fielding  Johnson 

A.  Arnold 

Francis  Tymony 

Max.  McCauslin. 

Seth  Clover 

F.  Fitzpatrick 

J.  A.  Cady 

Vital  Jarot 

R.  C.  S.  Brown 

R.  J.  Cowart 

John  Crawford 

Justin  Harland 

William  Wilson 

D.  H.  Cooper 

Isaac  Colman 

P.  P.  Elder 

A.  H.  McKissack 

Samuel  A.  Blaiu 

Matthew  Leeper 

J.  J.  Humphreys 

James  Logan 

P.  H.  Raiford 

W.  H.  Garrett 

William  Quesenbury. 

G.  A.  Cutler 

,        ,o   ,-,/.,  'EX\?i%  WampoTe 

June  13,  186L |  a.  P.  Dennison 


Name. 


November  2.  1854   . 

July  16,  1861 

Julv  10,  1851 

August  13,  1856 

July  16,  1661 

January  21.  1863 

July  17.  1861 

September  1,  1852 

May  1,  18.53 

May  13,  1857 

March  21,  1865 

May  3,  1853 

July  26,  1861 

April  30,  1861....:   . 

June  21,  1866 

July  22,  1852 

April  11,  18.53 

April  .30,  1861 

March  24,  1865 

August  4,  1862 

March  21,  1865... 

^P"l  ^l-  1?53. I  i:  B.  Lambdin 

T  .K   1 6^^1  sm'^ M^-  H-  Redtield  .... 

July  16,  1861 J.  S.  Grefforv 

tP"'f'1861 AndrewKph^ey 

June  7,  1864 p    -w   Catch 

im-n  7^'«'r.T^'  ^^^^ <^''^'-''''  Hutching;. 

00^^3^7863  •:::::::^"rR^;r^''- 

March  14,  1861....  '         "'•^^^ea 

June  7,  1864. 

May  11,1865 '. 

September  21,  1866 

April  2.3,  18.53 

March  25,  1861... 
March  23,  1861... 

April  20,  1865 

November  9,  1866. 

April  18, 18.53 

March  25,  1861...  . 


S.  H.  Culver 

J.  F.  Miller 

H.  H.  Spalding 

E.  A.  Starling 

Daniel  Newcomb  . . . 
Benjamin  R.  Biddle. 
Wesley  B.  Gasnell.. 

A.  R.  Wooley 

Michael  Steck 

Lorenzo  Labadi 

Jose  A.  Mansinares. 
E.  H.  Wingtield.... 
Michael  Steck  . . 

J.  T.  Russell 

Toribio  Romero 

R.  H.  Weightman  . . 

S.  M.  Baird 

S.  F.  Kendrick 

John  Ward 

W.  F.  M.  Arny 

L.  J.  Keithly  , 


Office. 


Pavenee  agency.* 

Pawnee  agency. t 

St.  Peter's  agency. t 

St.  Peter's  agency.* 

St.  Peter's  agency.t 

Pottawatomie  agency.* 

Ottoe  and  Missouria  agency.t 

Upper  Arkansas  agency.* 

Kansas  agency.* 

Kickapoo  agency.t 

Kickapoo  agency,  t 

Kickapoo  agency.* 

Delaware  agency.t 

Delaware  agency.t 

Shawnee  agency.t 

Sac  and  Fox  agency.* 

Osage  River  agency.t 

Osage  River  agency.* 

Upper  Platte  agency.* 

Upper  Platte  agency.t 

Upper  Platte  agency.* 

Cherokee  agency.* 

Cherokee  agency.* 

Cherokee  agency.t 

Cherokee  agency.* 

Choctaw  agency.* 

Choctaw  and  Chickasaw  agency.t 

Choctaw  and  Chickasaw  agency.* 

Neosho  agency.* 

Wichita  agency.* 

Wichita  agency.t 

Wichita,  agency.* 

Wichita  agency.t 

Creek  agency.* 

Creek  agency.* 

Creek  agency.* 

Creek  agency.t 

Crepk  agency.* 

Warm  Springs  (Oregon)  agency  t 

Warm  Springs  (Oregon)  agency.* 
Grande  Ronde  (Oregon)  agency.* 
Grande  Ronde  (Oregon)  agency.t 
Siletz  (Oregon"!  agency.* 
Siletz  (Oregon)  agency.* 
Siletz  (Oregon)  agency.t 
Siletz  (Oregon)  agency.t 
Umatilla  (Oregon)  agency.t 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.t 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.* 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.* 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.* 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.* 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.t 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.t 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexicoit 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico' f 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.t 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico  * 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico  * 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.* 
An  Indian  agent  in  New  Mexico.* 
Crow  Creek  agency.* 
Yancton  agency.t 
Ponca  ageucy.t 

Uintah  Valley  (Utah)  agency.* 
Uintah  Valley  (Utah)  agency.t 
Flathead  (Montana)  agency.* 
Blackfeet  (Montana)  agency.t 

•R  „  T„      1  1        Blackfeet  (Montana)  agency.* 

A    A    R^^,ln« Yakama  (Washington  Territory)  agency  ■ 

Simton  Wh  ?e  y Yakama  (Washington  Territor^    af eS  V! 

-iiueon  nmtely Indian  agent  m  Colorado.*        •'      «       .' 


nam  Kryson ,s,nith  river  (California)  agency  * 

llvxtl"""^^ Mackinac  (Michigan)  ageScy.*  ' 

l^Tt*'^: Mackinac  (Michigan)  agency.t 


William  Bryson  . . 

Willi 

A.M. 

J.  W.  Lynde 

A.C.Morrill  ... 

Edwin  Clark  .. 

J.  S.  Watrous. . 

Cyrus  K.  Drew 


Chippi'was  of  the  Mississippi  t 
Chippewas  of  flie  Mississippi.- 
Cluppewas  of  the  Mississippi  * 
Chippewas  of  Lake  Superior.* 
Chippewas  cf  Lake  Superior. f 


'  During  the  recess. 


tSenate  consented  to  appointment  of  his  successor. 


656  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

B. — Registers  of  land  offices  removed  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate. 


Name  of  officer. 


Location  of  office. 


State. 


Aprils,  1849 

April?,  1849 

April  12,  lrt49 

April  12,  1849 

April  14, 1849 

May  8,  1849 

Mav  8,  1849 

Mav8,  1849 

May  8,  1849 

May  8,  1849 

May  8,  1849 

May  8,  1849 

May  9,  1849 

May  9,  1849 

May  12,  1849 

May  12,  1849 

May  18,  1849 

May  18,  1849 

May  18,  1849 

May  18,  1849 

May  21,  1849 

May  21,  1849 

May  24,  1849 

May  31,  1849 

June    4,1849 

June    4,1849 

Jiine    4,1849 

Jtine  11,  1849 

June  14,  1849 

June  14,  1849 

June  25,  1849 

June  25,  1849..:.. 

July  J2,  1849 

July  12,  1849 

July  12,  1849 

July  16,  1849 

July  27,  1849 

October  10,  1849.. 
October  10,  1849.. 
October  10,  1849.. 
November  1,  1849. 
October  13,  1850.. 
October  13.  1850.. 

June  13,  18G1 

July  14,  1855 

July  24;  1855 

October  2,  1855  ... 

March  2(5, 1S5G 

April  3,  1857 

March  19,  1857 

March  20,1857 

March  28, 1857.... 
September  22, 1858 

AprillC,  1859 

May  3,  1859 

SepteinlKT  19, 1860 

April  1,  186L 

April  9,  1861 

April  9,  1H61 

April  9,1861 

April  9,  1861   

Muv  9,  1861 

May  15,  1S61 

April  2,1861 

April  2,1861 

April  2,  1861 

April  2.  1861 

April  9,  1861 

April  9,  1(^61 

April  10,1861 

April  15.  1861 

April  15,  1861 

April  18,  1861 

April  18,1861 

Aiiril  22,  1861 

April  26,  1861 

April  26,  1861 

April  30,  1861 

Muv  3,  1861 

May  30,  1861 

Juno  13,  18UI 


John  Gardner 

Thomas  Tiger 

J.  H.  McBri.le 

Abraham  Edwards  . 

John  F.  Reed 

John  Bruton 

John  Miller 

E.P.Dickson 

B.  P.  Jett 

Hiram  Smith 

Henry  L  Biscoe 

S.  15.  Furwell 

B.  R.  Cowherd 

J.B.  Hunt 

J.  W.  Rush 

J.  S.  Mayes 

CD.  Strickland,  jr.. 

Bernhart  Heun 

Charles  Neally 

Warner  Lewis 

J.  W.  Barrett 

Jolin  Barlow 

Albert  W.  Parrig 

Elisha  Taylor 

D.  P.  Richardson 

M.  Mclntire 

J.  C.  Sloo 

Thomas  J.  Hodson.. 
George  H.  Walker. . 
Hugh  P.  Caperton  . . 

John  Taj-lor 

R.  K.  McLaughlin  . . 

Lewis  St.  Martin 

Benjamin  Sherman  . 
Wiiiiara  E.  Russell  . 
Harmon  Alexander. 

Samuel  Holmes 

Nathaniel  Bolton 

Jacob  Freaman 

Franklin  Cannon 

William  MeNair 

Alausou  Saltmarsh. . 

D.  B.  Graham 

La  Fayette  Mosher. 

E.  W.  Martin 

W.  P.  Davis 

Henry  L.  Biscoe 

Fielding  L.  Dowsing 

Diedrick  Upson 

George  W.  Sweet. .. 

James  H.  Birch 

J.  O.  Henning 

Abner  C.  Smith 

Samuel  Clark 

Daniel  Shaw 

John'  McEnery 

W.  T.Galloway 

Ira  Munson 

E.  P.  Hart , 

Matthew  Keller 

William  McDaniels  . 

J.  R.  Bennett 

Pi4er  White 

Isaac  W.  Griffith  . . . 

Lewis  S.  Hills 

J.  M.  Stockdale 

S.  P.  Yeonians 

E.  O.  F.  Hastings... 

A.  C.  Bradford 

Isaac  AV.  Smith 

Charles  S.  Benton  . . 

James  C.  Dow 

Jesse  Morin 

James  E.  Jones 

David  R.  Currnn  . . . 
Samuel  B.  Garrett.. 

John  A.  I'arker 

O.  P.  Richardson 

Henry  L.  Brown 

Warren  11.  Graves. . 
Benjamiu  Jeuuings  . 


Winamac 

Fort  Wayne 

Springfield 

Kalamazoo 

Jeffersonville    . . 

Clarksville 

Batesville 

Fayetteville 

Washington  . 

Champagnole... 

Helena 

Dixon   

Jackson  

Sault  Ste.  Marie 
Crawfordsville. . 

Vincennes 

Green.sljurg 

Fairtield 

Iowa  City 

Dubuque 

Springfield 

Genesee 

Mineral  Point  . . 

Detroit 

Monroe 

Opelousas 

Shawneetown  . . 

Tallahassee 

Milwaukee 

Lebanon  

Detianee 

Vandalia 

New  Orleans 

Ionia 

Danville 

Palestine 

Quincy 

Indianapolis 

Kaskaskia 

Jackson  

Fayette 

Cahaba 

Montgomery 

Roseburg 

Elba 

Danville 

Helena 

Columbus 

Winona 

Sauk  Rapids 

Plattsburg 

Hudson 

Fore.st  City 

Buchanan  

Superior 

Monroe 

Eau  Claire 

San  Fraucisco  . . 

Vi.salia 

Los  Angeles 

Humboldt 

Chat  field 

Marquette 

Des  Moines 

Council  BlntTs .. 

Fort  Dodge 

Sioux  City 

Marysville 

Stockton  

( >lyinpia 

La  Crosse 

lli-nderson 

Fon  Scott 

Lecompton  . 

IMcnasha 

Junction  City  . . 

Oiiuilm 

Santa  F6 

Bonneville 

Springfield 

Oregon  City. ... 


Indiana. 

Indiana. 

Missouri. 

Michigan. 

Indiana. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Michigan. 

Indiana. 

Indiana. 

Louisiana. 

Iowa. 

Iowa. 

Inwa. 

Illinois. 

Michigan. 

Wisconsin. 

Michigan. 

Louisiana. 

Louisiana. 

Illinois. 

Florida. 

Wisconsin. 

Alabama. 

Ohio. 

Illinois. 

Louisiana. 

Michigan. 

Illinois. 

Illinois. 

Illinois. 

Indiana. 

Illinois. 

Missouri. 

ilissouri. 

Alabama. 

Alabama. 

Oregon. 

Alabama. 

Illinois. 

Arkansas. 

Mississippi, 

Minnesota. 

Minnesota. 

Missouri. 

Wisconsin. 

Minnesota. 

Minnesota. 

Wisconsin. 

Louisiana. 

Wisconsin. 

California. 

California. 

California. 

California. 

Minnesota. 

Michigan. 

lowu. 

Iowa. 

Iowa. 

Iowa. 

California. 

California. 

Washington  Territory. 

Wisconsin. 

Missouri. 

Kansas. 

Kansas. 

Kansas. 

Kansas. 

Nebraska. 

New  Mexico. 

Missouri. 

Missouri. 

Oregon. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 
B. — Registers  of  land  offices  removed,  Sfc. — Continued. 


657 


Date. 

Name  of  offioer. 

Location  of  office. 

State. 

June  22, 1861 

August?,  1861 

(»hio. 

September  9,  1861... 
March  18  1866 

William  E.  Keeper - . 

G.  W.  Bnartlmau 

Simon  Jones 

Koyal  Bueli 

H.  C.  Dripgs 

S.  T.  Davis 

G.W.Martin 

Illinois. 

September  26,  1866.. 
September  24,  1866.. 

Nebraska  City 

September  24, 1866. . 

Octobers,  1866. 

October  27,  1866 

Michigan. 
Invva. 

Sioux  City 

November  5, 1866  . . . 

C.  R.  Dorsey 

The  above  dates  are  those  upon  which  the  successors  of  the  above-named  persons  were  appointed. 


C. — Receivers  of  j^tihlic  moneys  removed  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate. 


Name  of  oflBcer. 


Location  of  oifice. 


March  28.  1849 

March  30,  1849 

April  7,  1849 

April  7,1849 , 

April  12,  1849 

April  12. 1H49 

May7,1849 

May  8, 1819 

May  8,1849 

May  8, 1849 

May  8,1849 

May  8, 1849 

Mav8, 1849 

May  8, 1849 

May  9, 1849 '... 

May  9,  1849 

May  9,  1849 

May  9,1849 

May  12.1849 

May  12,1849 

May  18,1849 

May  18,1849 

May  18,  1849 

May  18,  1849 

May  21,  1849 

May  31, 1849 

May  24,  1849 

June  4,  1849 

June  4,  1849 

June  14,1849 

June  25, 1849 

June  30,  1849 

June  25,  1849 

July  12, 1849 

July  27,  1849 

August  9,  1849 

August  25,  1849.... 
August  25,  1849  ... 
October  10,  1849  ... 
October  10,  1849  .  - . 
Decembfr  1,  1849  .. 
September  4,  1855. . 

October  8,  1855 

October  10,  1855  . . . 
September  1.1,  1856. 

August  19,  1858 

September  19,  1860 
September  21,  1860 

April  1,  1861 

March  30,  1861 

June  13,  1861 

March  30,  1861 

April  2,  1861 

April  2,  1861 

April  2,  1861 

April  2,  1861 

42  I  P 


John  G.  Winston 

Elisha  Morrow 

J.  D.  G.  Nelson  

James  P.  Drake 

Mitchell  Hinsdill 

Thomas  Dyer 

Lemuel  R.  Lincoln 

W.  Adams 

D.  J.  Chapman 

JIatthew  Deeper 

D.  T.  Witter 

M.  F.  Rainey 

George  Jeffries 

John  Domeut .• 

W.  W.  Leland 

M.  A.  Patterson 

David  C.  Glenn , 

Paschal  Beanette 

Bennett  W.Eugle 

Samuel  Wise 

Theodore  Gillespie 

Verplanck  Van  Antwerp. . 

Eiios  Lowe  

George  McHenry 

A.  G.  Herndon 

John  Parsons 

J.  A.  Hplfen.stien 

Braxton  Parrish 

J.  H.  Westbrook 

Frederick  Hall 

W.  L.  Hendei'son 

Samuel  Leech 

Daniel  Gregory 

John  B.  Filhiol 

Hiram  Rodgers 

Nicholas  B.  Smith 

J.  M.  B.  Tucker 

Daniel  Ashby , 

L.  R.  Noell , 

John  G.  Cameron 

H.  W.  Palfrey 

James  Larkius 

A.  S.  Bryant , 

J.  C.  Clarbonie 

Thomas  C.  Shoemaker 

E.  B.  Dean , 

Christopher  H.  Dodds 

John  D.  Evans 

John  E.  Perkins 

J.  H.  McKenny 

William  J.  Slartin 

Thomas  McXuUy 

Isaac  Cooper , 

A.  H.  Palmer , 

Thomas  Sargent , 

Robert  Means 


Lebanon  

Green  Bay 

Fort  Wayne 

Indianapolis 

Kalamazoo 

Chicago 

Little  Rock 

Clarksville 

Batesville 

Fayetteville 

Washington 

Champagnole 

Helena 

Dixon 

Pontotoc 

Sault  Ste.  Marie  . 

Jackson 

Mineral  Point 

Crawfordsville . . . 

Viucennes 

Greensburg 

Fairfield 

Iowa  City    

Dubuque 

Springfield 

Newmansville  . . . 

Milwaukee 

Shawneetown  . .. 

Columbus 

Ionia 

Defiance 

Stillwater 

Vandalia 

Monroe 

Quincy 

Springfield 

Natchitoches 

Clinton 

Danville 

Edwardsville 

New  Orleans 

Elba 


Sioux  City 
Batesville  . 


Superior 

Monroe  

Forest  City 

Eau  Claire 

Chatfield 

Roseburg 

Chillicothe 

Des  Moines 

Council  Bluffs  . 

Fort  Dodge 

Sioux  City 


Alabama. 

Wisconsin. 

Indiana. 

Indiana. 

Michigan. 

Illinois. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Arkansas. 

Illinois. 

Mississippi. 

Michigan. 

Jlississippi. 

Wisconsin. 

Indiana. 

Indiana. 

Louisiana. 

Iowa. 

Iowa. 

Iowa. 

Illinois. 

Florida. 

Wisconsin. 

Illinois. 

Mississippi. 

Michigan. 

Ohio. 

Minnesota. 

Illinois. 

Louisiana. 

Illinois. 

Missouri. 

Louisiana. 

Missouri. 

Illinois. 

Illinois. 

Louisiana. 

Alabama. 

Iowa. 

Arkansas. 

Territory  of  Kanss 

Wisconsin.  • 

Louisiana. 

Minnesota. 

Wisconsin. 

Minnesota. 

Oregon. 

Ohio. 

Iowa. 

Iowa. 

Iowa. 

Iowa. 


658  V  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

C. — Receivers  oj"  public  vioneys  removed,  c^c. — Continued. 


Date. 

Name  of  officer. 

Location  of  oflSce. 

State. 

April  9,  1861 

April  9,  1861 

April  9,  1861 

April  9,  1861 

April  9,  1861 

April  9.  1861 

AprillO,  1861 

April  15,  1861 

Koveraber  10,  1860  . 

1 
Marysville j  California. 

Les  Angeles California. 

(Jalit'oniia. 
AVashington  Territory 

l\li«iniiri 

J.  M.  S.  Van  Cleare  

Olympia 

Marquette    Michigan. 

April  22,  1861 

April  26,  1861 

April  26,  1861 

May  24,  1861 

May  18,  1861 

May  20,  1861 

May  30.  1861 

Juae  11    1861 

Junction  City |  Kansas. 

W.  A.  Street 

Santa  Fe New  Mexico. 

Baytield Wisconsin. 

Springfield Missouri. 

June  13,  1861 

Oregon  City Oregon. 

May  27,1861 

June  22,  1861 

September  9   1861 

C.  B.  Sraitb 

Chariesi  C.  Campbell 

Indianapolis |  Indiana. 

Octobers,  1861 

July  30,  1863 :. 

March  16,  1864 

John  J.  McClelland 

Menasha 

Wisconsin.   ■ 
,  Nebraska. 
New  Mexico. 

John  Greiner 

W.  B.  Mitchell 

Santa  Fe 

September  18,  1866.. 
September  18,  1866.. 
September  24,  1866.. 

March  30,  1865  

September  9.  1865  .. 

St.  Cloud 

J.  S.  McFarland         .      ... 

W.  H.  H.  Waters 

Nebraska  City ;  Nebraska. 

St.  Cloud I  Minnesota. 

Charles  A.  Gillmau 

J.  L.  Collins 

1 

The  above  dates  are  those  upon  which  the  .successors  of  the  above-named  persons  were  appointed. 


D. — Receivers  of  puhlic  moneys  removed  dnrivg  sessions  of  tlic  Senate,  that  body 
advising  and  consenting  to  the  appointments  of  their  successors. 


Name  of  officer. 


Location  of  office. 


State. 


July  31,  1852 

December  22,  1857 

May  17,  18.58 

June  3,  1858 

December  22,  1858 

March  8,  1859 

January  16,  18.59.. 
February  14,  1860 
February  14,  1860 

May  28,  "1860 

January  16.1860.. 
March  18,  1861.... 

March  2.5,  1861 

JIarch2.5,  1861 

March  23,  1861 

March  23,  1861.... 
March  23, 1861.... 
March  2.5, 1861.... 
March  27,1861.... 
March  27,  1861.... 

July  19,  1861 

July  22,  1861 

July  16, 1861 

March  6,  1862 

March  12,1863.... 
January  26,  1864. . 

June  7,  1864 

May  4,  1866 

July  14,  1866 


Henry  Acker 

Harvey  Whittington 

James  P.  Downer 

Edward  Conner 

E.  B.  Dean,  jr 

Robert  J.  Giaveriat 

JohnC.  Turk 

Thomas  C.  Hunt 

Jlilton  H.  Abbott 

Samuel  L.  Hayes 

Dave  Shaiv 

Peter  F.  Wilson 

Oscar  A.  Sterens 

W.  L.  P.  Little 

Benjamin  F.  Tillotson 

Albert  G.Kllis 

W.H.Mower 

Henry  J.  Wilson 

James  D.  Reynolds 

Sinniicl  E.  Adams 

Theodore  Rodolf 

John  J.  TurnbraUKh 

Nathaniel  B.  Holdou 

Richard  C.  Vaughn 

James  Conipton 

George  E.  Briggs 

B.  F.Reynolds 

John  Griemer 

Alfred  H.  Carrigan 


Sault  Ste.  Marie . 

Plattsburg 

Ogden 

Springfield 

Superior 

Marquette 

Dakota  City 

Natchitoches 

Cambridge 

St.  Cloud 

Superior 

Omaha 

Traverse  City  . .. 
East  Saginaw  . . . 

St.  Peter 

Stevens's  Point. . 

Sunrise  City 

Ionia 

Falls  St.  Croix... 

St.  Cloud 

La  Crosse 

Ironton 

Warsaw 

Nebraska  City... 

Marysville 

Roseburg 

Falls  of  St.  Croix 

Santa  F6 

Wiwhington 


Michigan. 

Missouri. 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Wisconsin. 

Michigan. 

Nebraska. 

Louisiana. 

Alinnesota. 

Minnesota. 

Wisconsin. 

Nebra.-<kii. 

Michigan. 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

Jlinnesota. 

Minnesota. 

Michigao. 

Wisconsin. 

Minnesota. 

Wisconsin. 

Missouri. 

Missouri. 

Nebraska. 

California. 

Oregon. 

Wisconsin. 

New  Mexico. 

Arkansas. 


The  above  dates  are  dates  of  confirmation  by  the  Senate. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 


659 


E. — Hegisters  of  land  offices  removed  during  session  of  the  Senate,  that  body 
advising  and  consenting  to  the  appointment  of  their  successors. 


Name  of  officer. 


Location  of  office. 


State. 


March  14,  18«... 
July  31.  1852  .... 
March  12,  1857... 

April  14,  18.5S 

.May  17,  1858 

May  17,  1858 

June  3,  1858 

June  3,1858 

June  1.5,  1858 

March  1,  1859. 
February  14,  1860 
March  23.  1860... 
March  25,1860... 
March  25,  1860... 
March  27,1861... 
March  23,1861... 
March  2.3,1861... 
March  23,1861... 
March  23,1861... 
March  27,1861... 
March  27,1861... 
March  25,1861... 
March  27,1861... 
July  19,  1861  .... 
March  6,  1862.... 
March  31,1862... 

July  17, 1862 

March  9, 1865  .... 
February  10, 1868 


Joel  S.  Fiske 

Andrew  Backus 

Deidrich  Upinan 

Robert  Brown 

Frederick  Emory 

W.  H.  Doak 

J.  Rush  Spencer 

John  Connelly,  jr 

W,  W.Gift 

A.  C.  Smith 

John  B.  Cloutier 

Charles  F.  Hyerraan. 

Jacob  Barns 

Moses  B.  Hes.*! 

Orpheus  Everts 

Joshua  B.  Culver 

Oscar  Taylor 

Hugh  Brawley 

Henry  N.  Setger 

Thomas  E.  Masaey . . . 

J.  D.  Cruttendon 

John  C.  Blanchard. .. 

Samuel  Plumer 

Charles  S.  Benton 

Adolph  Renard 

George  Webster 

W.  W.  Lewis 

D.  H.  Ball 

Joseph  W.  Edwards  . 


Green  Bay 

Sault  Ste.  Marie 

Faribault 

Des  Moines 

Ogden 

Fort  Scott 

Hudson 

Springtiold 

San  Francisco 

Forest  City , 

Natchitoches 

Detroit 

Traverse  City , 

East  Saginaw 

Falls  St.  Croix 

Portland , 

Otter  Tail  City 

Stevens's  Point 

Sunrise  City 

Forest  City 

St.  Cloud 

louia 

St.  Peter 

La  Crosse 

Recorder  of  land  titles,  St.  Louis 

Stockton 

BatesviUe 

Marquette 

Jlarquette 


Wisconsin. 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

Iowa. 

Kansas. 

Kansas. 

Wisconsin. 

Illinois. 

California. 

Minnesota. 

Louisiana. 

Michigan. 

Michigan. 

Michigan. 

Wisconsin. 

Minnesota. 

Minnesota. 

Wisconsin. 

Minnesota. 

Minnesota. 

Minnesota. 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

Wisconsin. 

Missouri. 

California, 

Arkansas. 

Michigan. 

Michigan. 


F. — Surveyor  generals  removed  during  recess  of  the  Senate. 


Date. 

Name  of  officer. 

Location  of  office. 

April  11,  1849 

Robert  Butler 

May  8   1849 

May  9,  1849 

P.  F.  Landry         

June  14,  1849  

March  22,  1859 

Oregon. 

Aprils   1861    

April  15,  1861 

J.  W.  Mandeville 

H  B.Burnett       

April  29,  1861 

May  11,  1861 

June  13  1861 

Oregon. 

March  16,  1865 

Daniel  W.  Wilder 

Surveyor  generals  removed  during  session  of  the  Senate.,  that  hody  advising  and 
consenting  to  the  appointments  of  their  successors. 


Date. 

Name  of  officer. 

Location  of  office. 

March  3,  1855 

March  27,  1861 

July  22,  1861 

July  15,  1861 

A.  P.  Wilbar 

Washington  Territory. 

March  13,  1863 

February  23,  1864 

Edward  F.  Beale 

May  22,  1866 

George  D.  Hill  .  . 

July  15,  1861 

Samuel  C.  Stambaugh 

Utah 

660  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Miscellaneous  removals. 


Date. 


Name  of  officer.  Office. 


S.  H.  Lauphlin |  Recorder  of  General  Land  Office. 

William  Medill j  CommissiDner  of  Indian  Affaire. 

Charles  Douglas Commissioner  of  Public  Buildings. 

C.  P.  Sengstack ,  Warden  of  the  penitoutiary,  Dist.  of  Columbia. 

Edmond  Burke |  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

James  L.  Edwards I  Commissioner  of  Pensions. 


July23,1849 

July  1,  1849 

April?,  1849 

Aprils,  1849 ' 

May  9,  1849 

November  10,  1850 

August  12,  1865 

September  7,  18(55 

November  3,  1866 

October  2 1,186-2 

June  29,  1850 !  f  Jonas  B.  Ellis 

March  — ,  1853 j  t  Luke  Lea 

December  23,  1859 j  t  Thomas  Tbornley 

March  19,  1861 i  t  Joseph  .S.  Wilson Commissiouer  of  General  Laud  Oftice. 

March  6,  1867 1  t  R.M.Hall I  Register  of  deeds. 

July  20, 1867 !  1  Thomas  B.  Brown Warden  of  the  jail,  District  lof  Columbia. 

*  During  reces.?.  t  Senate  consented  to  appoiatment  of  Buccessor. 


■  Robert  Beale. 
^  N.  C.  Towle  . 
Z.  C.  Robbins. 
'  S.  J.  Dallas.. 


Warden  of  the  jail. 

Register  of  deeds,  District  of  Coluirfbia. 

Register  of  wills,  District  of  Columbia. 

Principal  clerk  of  surveys  General  Laud  Office. 

Warden  of  the  penitentiary,  Dist.  of  Columbia. 

Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs. 

Warden  of  the  penitentiary,  Dist.  of  Columbia. 


Frederick  W.  Seward  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Curtis  : 

Question.  State  what  office  you  hold  under  the  government. 

Answer.  Assistant  Secretary  of  State. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  held  the  office  ? 

A.   Since  March,  1861. 

Q.  In  whose  charge  in  that  department  is  the  subject  of  consuls  and  consular 
and  vice-consular  appointments  ? 

A.  Under  my  general  supervision. 

Q.  Please  state  the  practice  in  making  appointments  of  vice-consuls  in  case 
of  the  death,  resignation,  incapacity,  or  absence  of  consuls. 

A.  Usually 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.     Is  not  that  regulated  by  law  ? 

Mr.  Curtis    That  is  a  matter  of  argument.     We  think  it  is. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  So  do  we.  There  cannot  be  any  dispute  on  that 
question. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Now  we  are  going  to  show  the  practice  under  the  law. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Different  from  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  Just  as  we  have  done  in  other  cases.  I  have  a  document  here 
to  offer,  but  it  requires  some  explanations  to  make  the  document  intelligible. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  We  do  not  object  if  the  object  is  to  show  the  practice 
under  the  law, 

Mr.  Curtis,  (to  the  witness.)  Proceed,  if  you  please,  Mr.  Seward. 

The  Witness.  When  tlie  vacancy  is  foreseen  the  consul  nominates  a  vice- 
consul,  who. enters  upon  the  discharge  of  his  duties  at  once  during  the  time  that 
the  nomination  is  sent  to  the  Department  of  State.  The  department  approves 
or  disapproves  when  it  receives  the  nomination.  In  case  the  vacancy  has  not 
been  foreseen  and  the  consul  is  dead,  absent,  or  sick,  unable  to  discharge  the 
duties  or  to  designate  his  temporary  substitute,  then  the  minister  in  the  country 
v^ill  make  a  nomination  and  send  that  to  the  Department  of  State ;  or  if  there 
be  no  minister,  the  naval  commander  will  not  infrequently  make  a  nomination 
and  send  that  to  the  Department  of  State,  and  the  vice-consul  so  designated 
will  act  until  the  department  shall  approve  or  disapprove.  In  other  cases  the 
department  itself  will  designate  a  vice-consul  without  any  previous  nomination 
of  cithi  r  minister,  consul,  or  naval  commander,  and  he  enters  upon  the  discharge 
of  Lis  duties  in  the  same  manner. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  661 

Q.  How  is  he  authorizod  or  commissioned  ? 

A.  He  receives  a  certificate  of  his  appointment  signed  by  the  Secretary  ot 
State. 

Q.  Running  for  a  definite  time,  or  how  "t 

A.  Running  "  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  law." 

Q.  Is  this  appointment  of  vice-consul  made  temporarily  to  fill  a  vacancy,  or 
how  otherwise  t 

A.  It  is  made  to  fill  the  office  during  the  period  which  necessarily  elapses  in 
the  time  that  it  takes  for  the  news  of  the  vacancy  to  reach  the  department  for  a 
successor  to  be  appointed. 

Q.  That  is  for  a  succeeding  consul  to  be  appointed  1 

A.  For  a  succeeding  full  officer  to  be  appointed.  Sometimes  a  period  of 
weeks  or  months  may  elapse  before  the  news  can  reach  this  country,  and  a 
similar  period  before  the  newly-appointed  successor  can  reach  the  post. 

Q.  It  is,  then,  in  its  character  an  ad  interim  appointment  to  fill  the  vacancy  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Is  there  anything  said  in  their  commissions  or  letters  of  appointment 
about  their  being  ad  interim  ? 

A.  Their  letter  of  appointment  says  "subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed 
hy  law." 

Q.  That  is  the  only  limitation  thei-e  is  ? 

A.  That  is  the  only  limitation  I  remember. 

Q,  Are  not  these  appointments  made  under  the  fifteenth  section  of  the  act  of 
August  IS,  1856  ? 

A.  I  think  the  act  of  1S56  does  not  create  the  office  nor  give  the  power  of 
appointment,  but  it  recognizes  the  office  as  already  in  existence,  and  the  power 
as  already  in  the  President. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  will  see  about  that  in  a  moment,  sir. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Has  the  manager  the  statute  before  him  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  have. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  is  the  volume  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  volume  is  the  11th  Statutes  at  Large.  This 
statute  begins  on  page  35  of  the  11th  Statutes  at  Large  ;  but  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  sections  are  those  that  relate  to  the  matter.  The  fourteenth  section  I 
xvill  I'ead,  for  I  want  to  ask  some  further  questions  in  regard  to  it : 

That  the  President  be,  and  he  is  hereby  authorized,  to  define  the  extent'  of  country  to 
be  embraced  within  any  consulate  or  commercial  agency,  and  to  provide  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  vice-consuls,  vice-commercial  agents,  deputy  consuls,  and  consular  agents  therein, 
in  such  manner  and  under  such  regulations  as  he  shall  deem  proper;  but  no  compensation 
shall  be  allowed  for  the  services  of  any  such  vice-consul  or  vice-commercial  agent  beyond 
nor  except  out  of  the  allowance  made  by  this  act  for  the  principal  consular  officer  in  whose 
place  such  appointment  shall  be  made ;  and  no  vice-consul,  vice-commercial  agent,  deputy 
consul,  or  consular  agent  shall  be  appointed  otherwise  than  in  such  manner  and  under  such 
regulations  as  the  President  shall  prescribe  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

(To  the  witness.)  Now,  sir,  in  the  Department  of  State,  have  they  ever 
undertaken  to  make  a  vice  consul  against  the  provisions  of  this  act  ? 

The  Witness.  I  am  not  aware  that  they  ever  have. 

Question.  Or  attempted  it  in  any  way  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  now  offer  from  the  Department  of  State  the  document  I  hold 
in  my  hand,  which  contains  a  list  of  consular  officers  appointed  during  the  session 
of  the  Senate  when  vacancies  existed  at  the  time  such  appointments  were  made. 
The  earliest  instance  of  it  in  this  list  is  in  1S37,  and  the  latest  one  does  not 
come  down  to  the  law  which  the  honorable  manager  has  read.  They  are  all 
prior  to  that  law,  and  after  the  year  1837. 


662  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

(The  document  was  handed  to  the  managers  for  examination.) 

Mr.  Ci'RTis.  I  was  mistaken  in  a  date.  I  thought  the  honorable  manager 
read  the  date  of  the  law  as  1866. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six.     August  18,  1856. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Then  there  are  some  which  are  subsequent  to  the  law.  They 
begin  in  1837,  and  they  come  down  to  about  1862,  if  I  remember  rightly.  I 
have  not  examined  it  minutely. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  There  was  a  prior  statute'of  1848,  which  was  partly 
revived  in  the  law  of  1856. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
counsel  for  the  respondent  to  the  fact  that  it  does  not  appear  from  this  paper 
that  these  vacancies  did  not  happen  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate.  It  merely 
states  that  they  were  filled  during  the  session.  As  these  were  offices  existing 
in  remote  countries  the  probability  is  that  the  vacancies  happened  during  the 
recess  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  does  not  appear  when  the  vacancies  happened.  The  purpose 
for  which  we  offer  the  evidence  is  to  show  that  these  temporary  appointments 
were  made  to  fill  vacancies  during  the  session  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  I  only  wish  to  give  notice  that  we  treat  them  as 
cases  where  vacancies  happened  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  it  being  per- 
fectly understood  that,  according  to  the  practice,  vacancies  happening  during 
the  recess  of  the  Senate  might  be  filled  during  the  session  of  the  Senate.  There 
is  no  evidence  to  the  contrary  in  the  papers. 

Mr.  EvAKTS.  We  understand,  then,  that  the  managers  hold  that  a  vacancy 
that  happens  in  the  recess  may  be  filled  during  the  session  without  sending  a 
nomination  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  No. 

Mr.  EvAR'is.  I  thought  that  was  what  you  stated.  Is  it  not  your  proposi- 
tion 1 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  I  only  give  notice  that  on  that  record  we  propose 
to  treat  these  as  vacancies  happening  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Evarts.  And  filled  during  the  session. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  We  do  not  know  anything  about  when  they 
were  filled.     It  docs  not  appear  that  they  did  not  happen  during  the  recess. 

Mr.  Evarts.  The  certificate  is  to  the  effect  that  they  were  filled  during  the 
session  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Blngham.  We  do  not  propose  to  settle  the  law  of  the  case  now. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  does  not  understand  the  honorable 
managers  as  objecting  to  the  reception  of  this  document  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  We  do  not  object  to  the  paper.  I  only  give  notice 
how  Ave  propose  to  treat  it,  on  the  face  of  the  paper,  as  not  showing  that  the 
vacancies  happened  during  the  session  of  the  Senate. 

The  document  is  as  follows: 

United  States  of  America,  Department  of  State  : 
To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting  : 

I  certify  that  the  document  hereunto  annexed  contains  a  list  of  consular  officers  appointed 
during  the  session  of  the  Senate,  where  vacancies  existed  at  the  time  such  appointments 
were  made. 

In  testimony  whereof  I,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 
have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State  to  be 
affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  11th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1868,  and  of  the  indepen- 
dence of  the  United  States  of  America  the  ninety -second. 

[L.  s.]  WILLIAM  H.  SEWAKD. 

Henry  C.  Bridges,  appointed  vice  consul  at  Kiu-Kiang,  China,  May  IG,  1864,  on  the  res- 
ignation of  W.  lireck,  consul. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  683 

D.  Thurston,  appointed  vice-consul  {general  at  Montreal,  May  31,  1864,  on  the  death  of 
J.  R.  Giddiups,  consid  g'eneral. 

A.  Duflf,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Demerara,  7th  January,  18(55,  on  the  death  of  C.  G. 
Hannah,  consul. 

Georp:e  W.  Hcaley,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Bombay,  December  28,  18GI,  on  the  death  of 
L.  H.  Hatfield,  consul. 

Robert  Dayman,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Funchal,  March  24,  1864,  on  the  death  of  G. 
True,  consul. 

E.  Bremt,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Hanover,  February  18,  1861,  on  the  resignation  of  J. 
S.  Holtou,  consul. 

Alexander  Thompson,  appointed  vice-consul  general  at  Constantinople,  January  7,  1860, 
awaiting  the  arrival  of  M.  M.  Smith,  appointed  consul  general. 

Bernardo  J.  Arcanques,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Bayonne,  April  19,  1850,  on  resignation 
of  John  P.  Sullivan,  consul. 

Joseph  Ayton,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Carthagena,  February  20,  1838,  on  the  resigna- 
tion of  J.  M.  McPherson,  consul. 

Thomas  V.  Clark,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Guayaquil,  December  31,  1857,  on  the  resigna- 
tion of  M.  P.  Gaine,  consul. 

A.  Lacombe,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Puerto  Cabello,  January  23,  186.5,  on  the  transfer 
of  C.  H.  Loehr  to  Laguayra. 

John  Gardner,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Rio  Janeiro,  September  15,  1839,  on  the  removal 
of  J.  M.  Baker. 

H.  F.  Fitch,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Pernambuco,  April  13,  1860,  on  death  of  W.  W. 
Stepp. 

August  Peixoto,  appointed  acting  consul,  December  7,  1864,  on  the  removal  of  Thomas 
F.  Wilson,  consul  at  Bahia. 

Samuel  G.  Pond,  appointed  acting  consul  at  Para,  December  2,  1862,  on  the  death  of  M, 
R.  Williams. 

Robert  H.  Robinson,  appointed  acting  vice-consul  at  Montevideo,  March  12,  1858,  on 
resignation  of  R.  M.  Hamilton. 

Amory  Edwards,  appointed  acting  consul  at  Buenos  Ayres,  December  28,  1840,  on  death 
of  Slade. 

William  L.  Hobson,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Valparaiso,  July.  17,  1840,  on  resignation  of 
George  G.  Hobson. 

George  B.  Merwin,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Valparaiso,  December  5,  1854,  on  the  resigna- 
tion of  Reuben  Wood. 

W.  H.  Kelley,  appointed  vice-consul  at  Otaheite,  December  31,  1848,  Mr.  Hawes  not  hav- 
ing exequatur. 

D.  B.  Van  Brundt,  appointed  United  States  consul  at  xicapulco,  May  26,  1860,  by  Flag 
Officer  Montgomery,  on  death  of  McMicken. 

Gideon  Welles  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  You  are  now  Secretary  of  the  Navy  ? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  At  what  time  and  from  whom  did  you  receive  that  appointment  1 

A.  I  was  appointed  in  March,  1861,  by  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Q.  And  have  held  office  continuously  until  now  ? 

A.  From  that  date. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  on  the  21st  of  February  last  your  attention  being  drawn 
to  some  movements  of  troops  or  military  officers  1 

A.  On  the  evening  of  the  21st  of  February  my  attention  was  called  to  some 
movements  that  were  being  made. 

Q.  How  was  this  brought  to  your  attention  ? 

A.  My  son  brought  it  to  my  attention.  He  had  been  attending  a  party  at 
which  there  had  been  an  application  from  a  son  of  General  Emory,  I  think,  and 
from  one  or  two  others,  for  any  officer  belonging  to  the  fifth  regiment  or  under 
the  command  of  General  Emory  to  repair  forthwith  to  headquarters. 

Q.  Ydur  son  had  observed  that  and  had  reported  it  to  you  1 

A.  He  reported  that  to  me. 

Q.  Did  you,  in  consequence  of  that,  seek  or  have  an  interview  with  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  ? 

A.  I  requested  my  son  to  go  over  that  evening;  but  he  did. not  see  the  Presi- 
dent. 


664  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stay  a  moment.     We  object  to  what  was  said. 
Mr.  RvARTS.  He  says  he  sent  his  son,  and  his  son  failed  to  seethe  President. 
His  attempt  was  first  to  send  a  message. 

The  Witness.  I  was  not  well,  and  could  not  go  myself. 

By  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  You  attempted  to  send  a  message  that  night  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  State  what  happened  on  the  following  day  1 

A.  On  Saturday,  the  22d,  I  went  myself,  in  the  morning  or  about  noon,  to 
the  President  on  that  subject.  I  told  him  what  I  had  heard,  and  asked  him 
what  it  meant 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  We  object  to  that  conversation. 

The  AVitness.  Very  good. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Is  objection  made  to  this  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  before  we  speak  to  the  objection  I  should 
like  to  ask  the  witness  to  fix  the  time  a  little  more  carefully. 

Mr.  Evarts.  He  has  stated  it  exactly;  about  noon. 

The  Witness.  About  12  o'clock  on  the  22d  of  February. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  How  close  to  12,  before  or  after? 

A.  I  should  think  it  was  a  little  before  12  o'clock.  I  will  state  a  circuni- 
stance  or  two.  The  Attorney  General  was  there  when  I  went  in.  While  I  was 
there  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewing  was  made  out  for  Secretary  of  AVar,  and  was 
delivered  to  the  private  secretary  to  be  carried  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stay  a  moment.  Let  us  see  what  time  he  said  that 
was. 

Mr.  Evarts.  It  is  not  time  for  cross-examination  now. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No  ;  but  I  submit,  Mr,  President,  it  is  time  for  cross- 
examination  upon  the  question  whether  the  thing  is  admissible,  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain the  time.  At  one  point  of  time  it  may  be,  while  at  another  point  of  time  it 
clearly  is  not  admissible. 

Mr.  Evarts.  It  is  quite  immaterial,  if  you  will  go  on  and  get. through, 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  Quite  immaterial  what  point  of  time? 

Mr.  Evarts.  Immaterial  whether  you  cross-examine  now  or  hereafter. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  I  only  want  to  fix  it,  (To  the  witness.)  You  think 
it  was  very  near  121 

The  Witness    About  12. 

Q.  Could  it  have  been  as  early  as  half  past  11  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  think  it  was, 

Q.  But  between  that  and  half  past  12  some  time  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Within  that  hour  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Mannger  Butler.   Now,  our  objection 

Mr,  Evarts.  Now  1  will  procef.d  with  my  questions,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Manager  IUitler.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Evarts.  How  far  have  we  got  now  ?  Let  the  answer  on  this  point  a? 
far  iis  it  has  gone  be  read,  Mr.  St,enograj)her, 

The  Chief  Jusiice.  The  stenographer  will  read  what  is  desired.   . 

D.  F,  Murphy,  one  of  the  ollicial  reporters,  read  from  the  short-liand  notes  of 
Mr.  Welles's  testimony,  as  follows  : 

On  Snturclay,  tbc  22d,  I  went  my.self  in  tho  mornings  or  about  noon  to  the  President  on 

that  subject.     I  told  him  whiit  I  hud  heard  ;  asked  him  what  it  meant 

Mr.  Manager  Butleu.  We  object  to  that  conversation. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  665 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Very  good. 

The  Chief  Justick.  If  the  question  be  objected  to,  the  counsel  will  please 
reduce  it  to  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Bu'I'LER.  We  object  to  any  conversation  of  the  President  at 
that  time. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  (to  the  witness.)  What  passed  between  you  and  the  President 
after  that  in  regard  to  that  communication  which  you  had  made  to  him  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Wait  a  moment.  The  Chief  Justice  desired  the  ques- 
tion to  be  put  in  writing. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  being  done  now. 

The  question  was  reduced  to  writing,  and  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  follows  : 

What  passed  between  you  and  the  President  after  you  made  that  communication  and  in 
reference  to  that  communication  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  would  state,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  before  any  argu- 
ment is  commenced  on  this  subject,  if  there  is  to  be  one,  that  this  evidence  is 
offered  in  regard  to  the  article  that  relates  to  the  conversation  between  the  Pres- 
ident and  General  Emory. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  precisely  as  we  understand  it,  Mr.  President ; 
but  we  also  understand  the  tact  to  be  that  General  Emory  had  been  sent  for 
before  Mr.  Welles  appears  on  the  scene.  That  is  why  I  was  anxious  to  fix  the 
time.  I  am  instructed  by  my  associate  manager^!,  and  we  are  now  endeavoring 
to  get  the  matter  certain,  that  General  Emory  received  a  note  to  come  to  the 
President's  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  that  he  got  there  before  even  the 
Secretary  of  the  Navy.  But,  however  that  may  be,  he  was  called  there  before  ; 
we  ca-nnot  at  this  moment  ascertain  exactly  how  that  is;  but  it  does  not  appear, 
at  any  I'ate,  that  this  conversation  was  before  Emory  wais  sent  for. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  shall  see  about  that. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  is  part  of  the  matter  of  proof  that  is  to  be  considered  of 
when  it  is  all  in,  as  to  which  is  right  in  hours  and  which  in  fjicts. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  question  of  what  was  said  in  the  conversation  is 
not  to  be  considered  as  proof  which  was  right  in  fact.  I  suppose  my  learned 
opponents  would  not  claim  that  if  this  was  before  General  Emory  came  there 
they  have  a  right  to  put  in  the  testimony. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  precisely  in  that  view  that  we  ofiFer  it. 

Mr,  Manager  ButlePw  I  should  have  said  subsequent. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  I  beg  your  pardon.  • 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  made  a  mistake  as  to  the  comparative  date,  for  whicb 
I  am  very  glad  that  you  corrected  me.  If  it  was  subsequent,  I  suppose  the 
gentlemen  would  not  claim  that  it  could  be  admitted.  Therefore  it  must  appear 
affirmatively  that  it  was  before,  in  order  to  make  it  competent.  That  is  my 
proposition.  It  does  not  appear  affirmatively  to  have  been  before,  and  I  think 
it  was  afterward  ;  but  of  that  I  am  trying  to  make  myself  certain  by  an 
examination. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  the  evidence  is  competent. 
It  will  be  for  the  Senate  to  judge  of  its  value.  He  will,  however,  put  the 
question  to'  the  Senate  if  any  senator  desires.  [After  a  pause.]  You  will  pro- 
ceed, Mr.  Welles. 

Mr.  EVART.S.  You  will  be  so  good  as  to  answer  the  question,  Mr.  Welles. 

The  Witness.  I  should  like  to  have  it  read. 

The  Chief  Clerk.  The  question  is  : 

What  passed  between  you  and  the  President  after  yon  made  that  communication  and  in 
reference  to  that  communication  ? 

The  WiTiVESS.  I  cannot  repeat  the  words,  perhaps,  exactly;  but  yet  I 
should  think  the  first  words  of  the  President  were  :  "  I  do  not  know  what 
Emory  means  ;"  or  "I  do  not  know  what  Emory  is  about."  I  remarked  that 
I  thought  he  ought  to  know  ;  that  if  he  was  summoning  high  officers  at  such  a, 


G66  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

time  the  evening  before,  it  must  be  for  a  reason,  and  it  was  his  duty,  I  thought, 
to  send  for  General  Emory,  and  to  inquire  into  the  fjicts.  He  hct^itated  some- 
what. We  had  a  little  conversation,  and  I  think  he  said  that  he  would  send 
for  him.  He  either  said  he  would  send  for  Emory,  or  that  he  would  send  and 
inquire  into  this.  I  think  he  said  he  would  send  for  him.  That  was  about  the 
conversation. 

By  Mr.  EvARTS  : 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Welles,  I  will  call  your  attention  to  the  21st  of  February  of 
this  year,  at  the  time  of  the  close  of  the  cabinet  meeting  on  that  day.  At  what 
hour  was  the  cabinet  meeting  held  on  that  day,  Friday,  the  21st  of  February  ? 

A.  At  12.     Twelve  is  the  regular  hour  of  meeting. 

Q.  That  is  the  usual  hour,  and  that  is  the  usual  day  for  cabinet  meetings? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  Tuesdays  and  Fridays. 

Q.  Did  you  at  that  time  have  any  interview  with  the  President  of  the  United 
States  at  which  the  subject  of  Mr.  Stanton's  removal  was  mentioned? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  About  what  hour  of  the  day  was  that  ? 

A.  I  cannot  fix  it.  It  must  have  been,  perhaps,  in  the  neighborhood  of  2 
o'clock. 

Q.  Had  you,  up  to  that  time,  heard  of  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

-A.  I  had  not  until  the  close  of  the  cabinet  business  that  day. 

Q.  When  the  cabinet  meeting  was  closed,  this  interview  took  place,  at  which 
the  subject  was  mentioned  1 

A.  U'he  President  remarked 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  (to  the  witness.)  You  need  not  state  now  what  it  was  the  Pres- 
ident said  ;  but  that  is  the  time  he  made  the  communication  1 

The  WiTi\E.ss.  Yes,  sir. 
By  Mr.  EvARTS  : 

Q.  What  passed  between  you  and  the  President  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  object  to  that. 

The  ChiEF  Justice.  Counsel  will  please  reduce  their  question  to  writing. 

Mr.  Evarts.  I  will  state  what  I  propose  to  pi'ove. 

Mr.  Co.XMESS.  I  move  that  the  Senate  take  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and,  at  the  expiration  of  the  recess,  the  Chief 
Justice  resumed  the  chair. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Before  presenting  in  writing  the  question  which  was  objected 
to,  I  wish  to  ask  one  or  two  preliminary  questions  of  Mr.  Welles  before  going 
further.  (To  the  witness.)  Did  the  President  proceed  to  make  any  communi- 
cation to  you  on  this  occasion  concerning  tlie  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  and 
the  appointment  of  General  Thomas  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  he  did. 

Q.  Was  this  before  the  cabinet  meeting  bad  broken  up  ;  or  at  what  stage  of 
your  meeting  was  it  1 

A.  We  had  concluded  the  departmental  business,  and  were  about  separating 
when  the  President  remarked 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  You  need  not  state  anything  he  said. 

]Mr.  Evarts.  It  was  then  that  he  made  the  communication,  whatever  it  was  ? 

The  Witness.  At  that  time  he  made  the  communication. 

Q.  Who  were  present? 

A.  I  believe  all  the  cabinet  were  present.  Perhaps  Mr.  Stanbery,  the  Attor- 
ney General,  was  not.  He  was  a  good  deal  absent  during  the  session  of  the 
Supreme  Court. 

Q.  All  were  present,  unless  it  be  Mr.  Stanbery,  you  think? 

A.  I  think  so. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  GC7 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  I  offer  to  prove  that  com- 
munication and  submit  it  in  this  form : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  on  this  occasion  the  President  coinniuiiicatcd  to  ^fr.  "Welles  and  the 
otlier  niemhers  of  his  cabinet,  before  the  meetings  broke  up,  that  lie  had  removed  Mr.  Stanton 
and  appointed  General  Thomas  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  that  npon  the  incpiiry  by 
Mr.  Welles  whethev  (Jeneral  Thomas  was  in  possession  of  the  otKce  tlw.  I'resident  replied  tliat 
he  was:  and  upon  further  ([uestion uf  Mr.  Welles  whether  Mr.  Stanton  acquiesced,  the  Pres- 
ident replied  that  he  did ;  all  that  he  required  was  time  to  remove  his  papers. 

Is  that  objected  to  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir.  In  reference  to  this  question  I  want  to  call 
the  counsel's  attention  to  the  state  of  the  fact.  I  understood  Mr.  Welles  said 
that  after  the  cabinet  meeting  broke  up 

Mr.  EvARTS.  No.  I  have  put  that  according  to  the  fact.  You  were  out,  I 
believe,  when  it  was  brought  out.  It  was  after  they  had  got  through  what  he 
calls  their  deparl mental  business,  but  before  the  meeting  broke  up,  that  the 
President  made  the  communication. 

Mr.  Manager  "Wilson.  Before  they  separated. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Before  the  meeting  broke  up.  It  was  in  the  cabinet  meeting 
not  yet  broken  up. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  the  honor  to  object  to  this. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  proposition  so  that  it  can 
be  heard  by  the  Senate. 

The  Secretary  read  the  oflfer,  as  follows : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  on  this  occasion  the  President  communicated  to  Mr.  Welles  and  the 
other  members  of  his  cabinet,  before  the  meeting  broke  up,  that  he  had  removed  Mr.  Stanton 
and  appointed  General  Thomas  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  and  that  upon  the  inquiry  by 
Mr.  Welles  whether  General  Thomas  was  in  possession  of  the  otitice  the  President  replied  that 
he  was;  and  upon  farther  question  of  Mr.  Welles  whether  Mr.  Stanton  acquiesced,  the  Pres- 
ident replied  that  he  did ;  all  that  he  required  was  time  to  remove  his  papers. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  as  it  seems  to  us,  this 
does  not  come  within  any  possible  proposition  of  law  to  render  it  admissible. 
It  is  now  made  certain  that  this  act  was  done  without  any  consultation  of  his 
cabinet  by  the  President,  whether  that  consultation  was  to  be  held  verbally,  as 
I  think  is  against  the  constitutional  provision,  or  whether  the  theory  is  to  be 
adopted  that  ihe  President  has  a  right  to  consult  Avith  his  cabinet  upon  ques- 
tions of  his  conduct.  I  should  hardly  have  dared,  perhaps,  to  speak  upon  this 
question  of  constitutional  law  with  any  confidence,- except  so  far  as  to  bring  to 
the  mind  of  the  Senate  that  the  President  has  no  right  to  call  upon  his  cabinet 
save  through  the  constitutional  method,  were  I  not  borne  out  in  it  by  the  opin- 
ion of  Jefferson.  Early  in  the  government  he  took  the  same  view  that  I  have 
heretofore  had  the  honor  incidentally  of  stating  to  the  Senate.  There  seems  to 
be  good  reason  for  it,  because  the  heads  of  departments  were  in  the  first  place 
never  expected  to  be  a  cabinet ;  there  were  but  three  of  them.  There  has  been 
a  gradual  growing  up  of  this  practice.  The  Constitution  wisely,  for  good  pur- 
poses, required  that  when  the  President  wanted  the  advice  of  any  one  of  his 
principal  ollicers  he  should  ask  that  advice  in  writing,  and  it  should  be  given  in 
writing,  so  that  it  should  remain  for  all  time  exactly  what  the  advice  was  which 
he  received,  and  exactly  the  point  made. 

And  the  reason  of  that  v/as,  there  had  been  an  attempt  in  the  various  trials 
of  impeachment  of  members  of  cabinets  to  put  in  the  fact  of  the  order  of  the 
King  to  the  cabinet,  or  the  advice  of  various  members  of  the  cabinet  to  each 
other.  That  had  been  exploded  in  the  Earl  of  Danby's  case.  That  question 
used  to  arise  under  that  state  of  facts  before  courts  of  impeachment,  but  our 
fathers  evidently  did  not  mean  that  it  should  arise  here. 

But  that  is  not  this  case,  and  I  have  only  adverted  to  this  to  make  the  clear 
distinction  :  whatever  may  be  the  character  of  the  act  of  removal  of  Edwin  M. 
Stanton  aud  the  act  of  appointment  of  Lorenzo  Thomas,  I  am  glad  that  it  is 


668  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

now  made  quite  certain  by  the  testimony  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  (who 
declares  he  never  lieard  of  it  until  after  it  was  done)  that  it  was  not  done  by 
the  advice  of  the  cabinet ;  that  the  President  was  solely  responsible  for  it ;  and 
upon  that,  his  own  sole  responsibility,  he  acted.  Now,  the  question  is,  after  he 
has  done  the  act,  after  he  has  thought  it  was  successful,  after  he  thought  Mr, 
Stanton  had  yielded  the  office,  can  he,  by  his  narration  of  what  he  had  done 
and  what  he  intended  to  do,  shield  himself  before  a  tribunal  from  the  conse- 
quences of  that  act  ?  Is  it  not  exactly  the  same  question  which  you  decided 
yesterday  by  almost  unexampled  unanimity  in  the  case  of  Mr  Perriu  and  Mr. 
Selye,  the  member  of  Congress,  on  that  same  day,  a  few  minutes  earlier  or  a 
few  minutes  later  1  They  offered  in  evidence  here  what  he  told  Mr.  Perriu  and 
what  he  told  Mr.  Selye ;  they  complicated  it  by  the  fact  that  xMr.  Selye  was  a 
member  of  Congress  ;  and  the  Senate  decided  by  a  vote  which  indicated  a  very 
great  strength  of  opinion  that  that  sort  of  narration  could  not  be  put  in. 

Now,  is  this  any  more  than  narration?  It  was  not  to  take  the  advice  of  Mr. 
Welles  as  to  what  he  should  do  in  the  future,  or  upon  any  question  ;  it  was 
mere  information  given  to  Mr.  Welles  or  to  the  other  members  of  the  cabinet 
after  they  had  separated  in  their  cabinet  consultation,  and  while  they  were  meet- 
ing together  as  any  other  citizens  might  meet.  It  would  be  as  if,  after  you 
adjourned  here,  some  question  should  be  attempted  to  be  put  in  as  to  the  action 
of  the  senate  because  the  senators  had  not  left  the  room.  Again,  I  say  it  was 
simply  a  uai'ration,  and  that  narration  of  his  intent  and  purpoijes,  his  thoughts, 
expectations,  and  feelings. 

I  do  not  propose  to  argue  it  further  until  I  hear  something  showing  why  we 
are  to  distinguish  this  case  from  the  case  of  Mr.  Perrin,  on  which  you  voted 
yesterday.  Mr.  Perrin  tells  you  that  on  the  22d  he  waited  for  the  cabinet 
meeting  to  break  up,  and  as  soon  as  it  broke  up  he  went  in  with  Mr.  Selye,  and 
then  the  President  undertook  to  tell  him.  You  said  that  was  no  evidence. 
Now,  when  he  undertook  to  tell  Mr.  Welles,  is  that  any  more  evidence  1  I  can- 
not distinguish  the  cases,  and  I  desire  to  hear  them  distinguished  before  I 
attempt  an  answer  to  any  such  distinction. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  certainly  nothing  has  yet  pro- 
ceeded from  the  mouth  of  this  witness  which  has  shown  that  the  act  of  removal 
of  Mr.  Stanton  or  of  appointment  of  General  Thomas  had  taken  place  with- 
out previous  advice  from  the  cabinet.  However  that  fact  may  be,  nothing  as 
yet  has  been  said  to  show  it.  All  that  has  been  proved  is  that  Mr.  Welles  had 
not  before  that  heard  of  the  fact  that  he  had  been  removed.  That  is  all  as  it 
now  stands.     I  merely  correct  that  impression  for  the  moment. 

So,  too,  I  wish  no  misunderstanding  as  to  the  situation  of  the  members  of  the 
cabinet  toward  the  President,  as  being  still  in  their  cabinet  meeting  with  unfin- 
ished, luiadjourned  counsel.  I  think  the  honorable  manager  is  a  little  in  diffi- 
culty on  that  point  from  having  an  impression  beyond  the  case  as  it  was  left 
by  the  witness  when  he  left  the  stand  before  the  recess,  and  not  attending  to 
the  differences  made  by  his  answers  to  my  questions  since  he  returned,  my 
desire  being  to  get  at  the  precise  fact. 

Now,  then,  it  stands  thus,  that  at  a  cabinet  meeting  held  on  Friday,  the  21st 
of  February,  when  the  routine  business  of  the  difftirent  departments  was  over, 
and  when  it  was  in  order  for  the  Pi'esident  to  communicate  to  his  cabinet  what- 
ever he  desired  to  lay  before  them,  the  President  did  communicate  this  fact  of 
the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  aj)pointment  of  General  Thomas  ad  inferim, 
and  that  thereupon  his  cabinet  officers  inquired  as  to  the  posture  in  which  the 
matter  stood,  and  as  to  the  situation  of  the  office  and  of  the  conduct  of  the 
retiring  officer.  Here  we  get  rid  of  the  suggestion  that  it  is  a  mere  communi- 
cation to  a  casual  visitor  which  made  the  staple  of  the  argument  yesterday  against 
the  introduction  of  the  evidence  as  to  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Perrin  and  Mr. 
Selye.     We  now  present  you  the  communication  made  by  the  President  of  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  669 

United  States  while  this  act  was  in  the  very  process  of  execution,  while  it  was 
yet,  as  we  say  in  law,  injieri,  being  done. 

It  being  in  fieri,  the  President  communicates  the  fact  how  tliis  public  trans- 
action has  been  performed  and  is  going  on,  and  we  are  entitled  to  tliat  as  a  part 
of  the  res  gesfir  in  its  sense  of  a  governmental  act,  with  all  tlie  benefit  that  can 
come  from  it  in  any  future  consideration  you  are  to  give  to  the  matter  as  bearing 
upon  the  merits  and  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  President  in  the  premises.  It 
bears,  as  we  say,  directly  upon  the  question  whether  there  had  been  any  other 
purpose  than  the  placing  of  the  office  in  a  proper  condition  for  the  public  ser- 
vice according  to  the  announcement  of  the  President  as  his  intention  when  he 
conversed  with  General  Sherman  in  the  January  preceding  ;  and  it  negatives 
all  idea  that  at  the  time  that  General  Thomas  to  Mr.  Wilkeson  or  to  the 
Dakota  delegate,  Mr.  Burleigh,  Avas  saying  or  suggesting  anything  of  force,  the 
President  was  the  author  of,  or  was  responsible  for,  his  statements.  The  truth 
is,  it  presents  the  transaction  as  wholly  and  completely  an  orderly  and  peaceful 
movement  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  in  fact  it  was,  and  no  evi- 
dence has  been  given  to  the  contrary,  of  any  occurrence  disturbing  that  peace- 
ful order,  and  as  the  situation  in  which  its  completion  left  the  matter  in  tiie 
mind  of  the  President  up  to  that  point  of  time. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  desire  to  add  to  what  my  colleague  has 
said  a  very  few  observations  of  a  slightly  different  character  from  those  which 
he  has  addressed  to  the  Senate.  We  are  anxious  that  this  testimony  now 
offered  should  be  distinguished  in  the  apprehension  of  the  Senate,  as  it  is  in 
our  own,  from  an  offer  of  advice,  or  from  the  giving  of  advice  by  the  cabinet 
to  the  President.  We  do  not  place  our  application  for  the  admission  of  this 
evidence  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  an  act  of  giving  advice  by  bis  councillors  to 
the  President.  We  place  it  upon  the  ground  that  this  was  an  official  act  done 
by  the  President  himself  when  he  made  a  communication  to  his  councillors  con- 
cerning this  change  which  he  had  made  in  one  of  their  number;  that  that  was 
strictly  and  purely  an  official  act  of  the  President,  done  in  a  proper  manner,  the 
subject-matter  of  which  each  of  thos-e  councillors  was  interested  in  iu  his  public 
capacity,  and  which  it  was  proper  for  the  President  to  make  known  to  them  at 
the  earliest  moment  when  he  could  make  such  a  communication. 

Now  I  wish  to  say  a  word  in  respect  to  the  character  of  this  council,  in  reply 
to  the  remarks  of  the  honorable  manager  concerning  the  constitutional  rights 
and  powers  of  the  President  in  respect  to  them.  I  understand  the  honorable 
manager  to  have  rested  his  views  concerning  the  constitutional  character  of  those 
councillors  upon  what  he  understands  to  be  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinions- and  prac- 
tice. I  wish  to  bring  before  the  Senate  in  this  connection,  and  somewhat  in 
advance  of  the  question  which  will  presently  arise  respecting  advice  given  by 
these  officers,  the  practice  of  this  governjnent  concerning  such  a  council ;  and  1 
beg  to  refer  the  Senate,  in  the  first  place,  to  a  passage  from  the  Federalist.  In 
its  commentary  upon  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  enables  the  Presi- 
dent to  require  the  opinion  in  writing  "  of  the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the 
executive  departments  upon  any  subject  relating  to  the  duties  of  their  respective 
offices,"  I  read  from  Dawson's  edition  of  the  Federalist,  pages  516,  517. 

Mr.  JoHASON.  What  is  the  number  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  Number  73.  The  author,  in  the  first  place,  quotes  what  I  have 
read  from  the  Constitution,  and  then  makes  this  remark,  and  passes  from  the 
subject  as  requiring  no  further  discussion  or  examination  : 

This  I  consider  as  a  mere  redundancy  in  the  plan ;  as  the  right  for  which  it  provides 
would  result  of  itself  from  the  office. 

Mr.  JoH.xsoN.  That  is  by  Mr.  Hamilton. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Thafis  Mr.  Hamilton.  Now,  in  respect  to  the  practice  of  this 
government,  and  particularly  the  practice  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  its  relations  to  what 


670  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

had  preceded  under  other  Presidents,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  Mr.  Gr.  T.  Curtis's 
History  of  the  Constitution,  volume  2,  page  409,  note : 

Those  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  precise  structure  of  the  American  g^ovcirnment  will 
probably  be  surprised  to  learn  that  what  is  in  practice  sometimes  called  the  "cabinet"  has  no 
constitutional  existence  as  a  directory  body,  or  one  that  can  decide  anything.  The  theory 
of  our  government  is,  that  what  belongs  to  the  executive  power  is  to  be  exercised  by  the 
uncontrolled  will  of  the  President.  Acting  upon  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  empow- 
ers the  President  to  call  for  the  opinions  in  writing  of  the  heads  of  departments.  Washington, 
the  first  President,  commenced  the  practice  of  taking  their  opinions  in  separate  consultation; 
and  he  also,  u])on  important  occasions,  assembled  them  for  oral  discussion  in  the  form  of  a 
council.  After  having  heard  the  reasons  and  opinions  of  each  he  decided  the  course  to  be 
pursued. 

And  I  may  mention  here  in  passing,  that  if  senators  have  the  curiosity  to 
look  into  the  history  of  the  period  they  will  find  that  the  latter  course  was  pur- 
sued by  General  Washington,  especially  toward  the  close  of  his  first  and  during 
his  second  administrations,  on  very  important  occasions,  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent of  which  was  the  difficulty  with  the  French  minister,  M.  Genet,  and  the 
course  that  was  pursued  by  the  government  growing  out  of  those  complications. 
The  author  proceeds  : 

The  second  President,  Mr.  John  Adams,  followed  substantially  the  same  practice.  The 
third  President,  Mr.  Jetferson,  adopted  a  somewhat  different  practice.  When  a  question 
occurred  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  require  the  opinions  of  all  the  heads  of  departments,  he 
called  them  together,  had  the  subject  discussed,  and  a  vote  taken,  in  which  he  counted  him- 
self but  as  one.  But  he  always  seems  to  have  considered  that  he  had  the  j)o\ver  to  decide 
against  the  opinion  of  his  cabinet.  That  he  never  or  rarely  exercised  it  was  owing  partly  to 
the  unanimity  of  sentiment  that  prevailed  in  his  cabinet,  and  to  his  desire  to  preserve  that 
unanimity,  and  partly  to  his  disinclination  to  the  exercise  of  personal  power.  When  there 
were  differences  of  opinion  he  aimed  to  produce  a  unanimous  result  by  discussion,  and  almost 
always  succeeded.     But  he  admits  that  this  practice  made  the  Executive,  in  lact,  a  directory. 

And  then  references  are  given  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  works  in  support  of  this 
statement.  The  author  does  not  continue  to  speak  of  the  sub.<equent  practice 
of  the  government,  as  that,  no  doubt,  was  considered  to  be  very  familiar,  his 
purpose  being  merely  to  point  out  the  origin  of  these  two  practices  ;  the  one 
being  that  the  members  of  the  cabinet  Avere  called  together  and  a  consultation 
held,  and  then,  as  the  result  of  that  consultation,  the  President  decided ;  the 
other  practice  being  that  a  vote  was  taken  in  the  cabinet,  the  President  himself 
ordinarily  counting  as  one  in  that  vote,  but  always  understanding  that  he  had 
the  power,  if  he  thought  proper  to  exert  it,  to  decide  the  question  independently 
of  the  votes  of  the  cabinet.  That,  I  understand,  has  continued  to  be  the  practice 
from  Mr.  Jeff'erson's  time  to  the  present  day,  and  including  all  the  Presidents 
who  have  intervened  during  that  period. 

I  have  made  these  remarks  because  they  seem  to  me  to  have  an  application, 
not  merely  to  the  testimony  now  offered,  but  to  other  evidence  which  we  shall 
have  occasion  to  present  to  the  Senate  subsequently.  They  are  pertinent  to  the 
question  now  under  consideration,  for  they  go  to  show  that,  under  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  the  United  States,  as  practiced  on  by  every  I'rcsident,  includ- 
ing General  Washington  and  Mr.  Adams,  cabinet  ministers  were  assembled  by 
them  as  a  council  for  the  purposes  of  consultation  and  decision ;  and,  of  course, 
when  thus  assembled,  a  communication  made  to  them  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  concerning  an  important  official  act  which  was  then  ///  fieri,  in 
process  of  being  executed  and  not  yet  completed,  is  itself  an  official  act  of  the 
President,  and  we  submit  to  the  Senate  that  we  have  a  right  to  prove  it  in  that 
character. 

A  reference  has  been  made  by  the  honorable  manager  to  attempts  which  have 
sometimes  been  made  in  England  by  ministers  to  defend  themselves  under  the 
orders  of  the  king.  Everybody  who  understands  the  British  constitution  knows 
that  that  is  in  the  nature  of  the  government  an  absurdity.  The  king  is  not 
responsible;  the  ministers  are;  and  therefore  any  order  whicli  the  king  gives 
contrary  to  law  is  executed  by  his  ministers  on  their  own  responsibility,  and  not 


I 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  671 

upon  that  of  the  sovereign.  In  the  United  States  it  is  wholly  otherwise  ;  the 
responsibility  is  on  the  President ;  bnt  among  other  responsibilities  which  it 
involves  is  the  responsibility  to  seek  and  weigh  and  consider  the  advice  which 
it  is  proper  for  him  to  receive. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  INFr.  President,  I  shall  not  pursue  the  discussion  as  to 
whether  advice  given  by  the  cabinet  to  the  President  would  be  competent, 
because  it  is  agreed  by  the  counsel  for  the  President  last  up  that  this  was  neither 
to  got  advice,  nor  was  tliere  anj'thing  in  the  nature  of  advice. 

It  is  said  that  it  is  an  official  act.  I  had  supposed  up  to  this  moment — ay, 
and  I  suppose  now — that  there  is  no  act  that  can  be  called  an  official  act  of  an 
officer  which  is  not  an  act  required  by  some  law  or  some  duty  imposed  upon 
that  officer.  Am  I  right  in  my  ideas  of  what  is  an  official  act  1  It  is  not  every 
volunteer  act  by  an  otKcer  that  is  official.  Frequently  such  acts  are  officious, 
not  official.  Au  official  act,  allow  me  to  say,  is  an  act  which  the  law  requires, 
or  a  duty  which  is  enjoined  vipon  the  officer  by  some  law,  or  some  regulation,  or 
in  some  manner  as  a  duty.  Will  the  learned  counsel  tell  the  Senate  what 
constitutional  provision,  what  statute  provision,  what  practice  of  the  govern- 
ment requires  the  President  at  any  time  to  inform  his  cabinet  or  any  member 
of  them  whatever  that  he  has  removed  one  man  and  put  in  another,  and  that 
that  other  man  is  in  office  ?  If  there  is  any  such  law  it  has  escaped  my  atten- 
tion.    I  am  not  aware  of  it. 

The  only  law  that  ever  has  been  made  on  this  subject  is  the  law  of  March  2, 
1867.  which  requires  the  President  to  inform  one  member  of  his  cabinet,  to 
wit,  the  Secretary  of  tire  Treasury,  when  he  suspends  au  officer,  and  then  re- 
quires the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  inform  the  accounting  officers  of  the 
treasury,  so  that  that  suspended  officer  shall  by  no  accident  get  his  salary.  Up 
to  that  time  there  never  was  any  law  requiring  any  such  information,  and  that 
law  is  a  special  one  for  a  special  purpose ;  and,  in  the  case  of  the  suspension  of 
Mr.  Stanton,  was  carried  out  by  the  President,  he  sending  to  the  Secretary  pri- 
vately— specially,  I  should  say,  rather  than  privately — sending  to  the  Secre- 
tary specially  the  fact  that  there  had  been  such  removal,  and  the  Seci-etary,  as 
we  have  proved  by  Mr.  Creecy,  informed  his  subordinates,  as  the  act  of  March 
2,  1867,  the  tenure  of  civil  office  act,  required. 

If  I  am  right,  senators,  and  there  is  no  official  duty  on  the  President  to  inform 
his  cabinet,  whether  in  session  or  out  of  session,  whether  just  as  they  broke  up 
or  after  they  had  got  through  the  routine  of  business,  or  at  any  other  time,  as 
to  such  a  proceeding  on  his  part,  then  I  undertake  to  say  it  is  not  an  official  act; 
it  is  an  act  required  by  no  law,  by  no  practice,  so  far  as  it  is  in  evidence  here, 
and  by  no  duty. 

Now,  then,  what  is  offered  1  He  had  done  the  act.  While  the  counsel  took 
exception  to  my  stating  to  the  Senate  that  it  was  in  evidence  that  this  was  not 
a  consultation  of  the  cabinet,  that  the  cabinet  had  never  consulted  upon  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  in  the  manner  and  form  in  which  it  was  done,  and  that 
was  fairly  to  be  gathered  from  Mr.  Secretary  Welles's  testimony,  yet,  I  observe 
that  he  did  not  state  to  the  Senate  that  the  cabinet  ever  was  consulted  with 
upon  the  question  of  removing  Mr.  Stanton  in  manner  and  form  as  it  was  done  ; 
and  whenever  he  or  anybody  does  state  it,  I  have  the  President's  declarations, 
which  I  can  prove,  that  it  was  not  so.  Therefore,  I  assume  it  never  will  be 
stated. 

Now,  then,  what  is  offered  ?  Stanton  has  heen  removed  by  the  act  of  the 
President ;  and  thereupon,  without  asking  advice — because  that  is  expressly 
waived  by  the  learned  counsel  last  addressing  us — not  as  a  matter  of  advice,  the 
President  gives  information.  Now,  how  can  that  information  be  evidence  ? 
How  can  he  make  it  evidence  ?  The  information  is  required  by  no  law ;  was 
given  for  no  purpose  to  carry  out  any  official  duty  ;  was  the  mere  narration  of 
what  the  President  chose  to  narrate  at  that  time. 


672  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

More  than  that,  sir;  it  is  said  that  this  must  prove  the  case  of  the  President; 
and  the  gravity  with  which  it  was  argued  by  both  counsel  shows  the  importance 
they  place  upon  it.  It  is  said  this  must  prove  the  case  of  the  President,  because 
it  proves  that  then  he  had  no  idea  of  using  force.  I  should  have  no  objection 
to  grant  that  at  that  moment  he  had  no  idea  of  using  force,  because  he  at  that 
time  supposed  that  Jlr.  Stanton  had  yielded  the  office,  and  there  was  no  occasion 
to  use  force. 

Therefore  he  had  no  idea  of  force  at  that  moment  of  time,  if  he  told  the  truth. 
He  says,  "Stanton  is  out  and  Thomas  is  in  ;  and  it  is  all  settled."  Then  he 
did  not  mean  to  use  force.  But  what  did  he  mean  to  do  in  case  Stanton  resisted, 
as  Stanton  did  resist?  That  is  the  question  for  the  Senate.  What  did  he  con- 
template? What  had  been  in  his  mind  1  General  Sherman  lets  it  out  here 
that  he  and  the  President  said  something  about  force.  General  Sherman  uses 
the  word  "force."  Where  did  he  get  that  idea  ?  Sherman,  with  great  caution, 
says,  "  I  agree  that  I  do  not  know  that  he  said  anything  from  which  I  got  the 
idea  of  force ;  so  that  I  could  say  what  he  said,  or  that  he  said  anything  from 
which  I  had  a  right  to  infer  it."  But  he  said  something  from  which  Sherman 
did  infer  it,  and  he  put  the  word  "force"  here  before  you  of  his  own  free  will 
and  accord.  It  bore  on  his  mind  ;  and  when  the  learned  senator  [Mr.  Howard] 
asked  what  force  was  meant,  what  did  the  President  say  about  force,  Sherman 
said — I  give  the  substance  now — "  I  cannot  say  what  he  said  that  would  justify 
me  in  using  the  word  '  force.'  "  The  record  is  before  you,  senators.  You  will 
correct  me  if  I  am  wrong ;  but  I  think  I  am  exactly  right  in  substance. 

That  testimony  being  in,  and  other  testimony,  how  does  the  President's  nar- 
ration, after  he  thought  Stanton  had  given  up  the  office  peaceably,  (when,  if  I 
may  use  a  common  phrase,  he  was  chuckling  over  the  fact  to  his  cabinet  that 
he  had  got  possession  of  the  office  easier  than  he  expected  to  do,)  form  a  piece 
of  evidence  in  this  case  ?  How  can  it  be  put  in?  Senators,  you  may  think 
this  piece  of  evidence,  and  perhaps  you  in  some  of  your  decisions  have  pro- 
ceeded iipon  that  hypothesis — I  have  no  right  to  know,  but  I  trust  without 
offence  I  may  suggest  it — you  may  think  that  this  particular  piece  of  evidence 
does  not  weigh  much,  and  that,  perhaps,  it  is  best  to  let  it  in  because  it  does 
not  weigh  much.  But  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  think  it  weighs  heavily, 
for  both  of  them  argue  it  with  great  care.  I  say  you  may  put  it  upon  that 
ground  ;  but  it  lays  the  foundation  for  other  information,  other  declarations  to 
the  other  members  of  the  cabinet ;  and  I  do  not  know  where  you  cau  stop  ;  and 
whenever  yau  attempt  to  stop  you  simply  involve  yourselves,  I  respectfully 
submit,  in  an  inconsistency,  that  you  ruled  in  what  was  said  to  Mr.  Welles  and 
refused  to  rule  in  what  was  said  to  Mr.  A  or  j\Ir.  B  thereafter;  for  it  is  impos- 
sible, in  my  judgment,  to  distinguish  the  cases. 

As  yet  I  iiave  not  heard  any  legal  distinction  between  the  case  of  Perrin  and 
the  case  of  Welles,  between  what  was  said  to  Perrin  and  what  was  said  to 
Welles.  The  only  distinction  is  that  one  was  a  cabinet  officer  and  the  other 
was  not ;  but  is  that  a  legal  distinction,  when  they  themselves  admit  that  it 
was  not  submitted  to  the  cabinet  officer  for  the  purpose  of  asking  advice,  or  for 
any  like  purpose?  It  is  a  mere  piece  of  information.  Nor  do  they  stop  there. 
They  then  propose  to  put  in  what  the  President  thought  he  would  do.  That 
is  the  offer.  Now  can  that  be  evidence  ?  Can  you  distinguish  it  from  the  case 
of  Perrin  yesterday  ;   I  mean  by  any  legal  distinction  if 

Mr.  EvAKT.s.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  I  connected  this  piece  of  evi- 
dence, which  I  suppose  may  rightfully  be  introiluced  as  a  part  of  the  action  of 
the  President,  with  previous  testimony  that  had  been  given  as  to  what  his 
expectation  was  would  happen  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Stanton  when  he  should  make 
an  order  for  his  removal,  as  made  known  to  us  in  the  testimony  of  General 
Sherman;  and  I  cannot  consent  to  that  testimony  being  either  misconceived  or 
misrepresented.     That  witness  said  "something  was  said  about  force,  and  thea 


I 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT,  G73 

the  President  said  there  will  bo  no  occasion  for  that,  because  Mr.  Stanton  will 
retire;"  and  in  answer  to  the  question  of  the  honorable  senator  from  Michigan 
as  to  what  was  said  about  force,  the  witness  assumed  to  himself  that  all  that 
was  said  about  force,  all  that  had  the  idea  of  force  in  it,  proceede*l 
from  himself  in  the  form  of  his  question  as  to  what  would  happen  in  case  Mr. 
Stanton  should  resist  or  refuse,  and  then,  not  only  by  an  absohite  exclusion  of 
the  idea  that  the  President  used  any  words  of  force  from  his,  the  President's, 
mouth,  or  raised  a  notion  that  there  might  be  an  opportunity  or  occasion  for 
force,  proceeded  to  say,  with  that  precision  which  marked  all  his  reflective  and 
deliberate  testimony,  "The  President  did  not  convey  to  my  mind  any  idea  that 
force  was  to  be  used." 

The  Chikf  Justice.  Senators,  the  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  this  evidence 
is  admissible.  It  has,  as  he  thinks,  important  relations  to  the  res  gestce,  the 
very  transaction  which  forms  the  basis  of  several  of  the  articles  of  impBachment, 
and  he  thinks  it  also  entirely  proper  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in  forming' 
an  enlightened  judgment  upon  the  intent  of  the  President.  He  will  put  the 
question  to  the  Seriate  if  any  senator  desires  it. 

Mr.  Cragin.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  it.  If  it  is  in  order  I  will  ask 
that  the  offer  to  prove  made  yesterday  in  the  case  of  the  witness  Perrin  may  be  read. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  Chief  Jlsticb.  No  debate  is  in  order.     The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  Coi\NESs.  The  senator  from  New  Hampshire  calls  for  the  reading  of  a 
question. 

The  Chief  Justice,  What  question  ? 

Mr.  CoN.N'ESS,  The  question  proposed  to  be  put  yesterday  to  another  witnesa, 
which  was  then  voted  upon. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  chief  clerk  being  unable  to  find  the  written  offer  yesterday  submitted 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Here  is  the  Globe.     You  can  read  it  from  that. 

The  chief  clerk  read  the  offer  to  prove  in  the  case  of  the  witness  E.  0. 
Pen  in,  yesterday,  from  the  Globe,  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  the  President  then  stated  that  he  had  issued  an  order  for  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  employment  of  General  Thomas  to  perform  the  duties  ad 
interim ;  that  thereupon  Mr.  Perrin  said,  "  Supposing  Mr.  Stanton  should  oppo-se  the  order?" 
The  President  replied,  "There  is  no  danger  of  that,  for  General  Thomas  is  alrealy  m  the 
office."  He  then  added,  "It  is  only  a  temporary  arrangement ;  I  shall  send  in  to  the  Senate 
at  once  a  good  name  for  the  office." 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG.  What  was  the  time  referred  to  in  that  question? 

Mr.  SuMiXKR.  What  was  the  vote  of  the  Senate  on  that? 

The  Chief  Jus'JIcr.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  vote  of  the  Senate  on  that 
subject. 

The  Secretary,  On  this  question  the  yeas  were  9  and  the  nays  37. 

Mr.  Trumbull.  I  should  like  to  know  how  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
voted  upon  it.     [  Laughter.  | 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read,  in  answer  to  the  question, 
the  vote  in  full. 

Mr.  Shermam.  I  object.     All  this  is  in  the  nature  of  argument. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  it  all  out  of  order;  but  lest 
there  might  be  some  misapprehension  he  did  not  interpose. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  should  like  to  hear  a  word  further  from  the  counsel  for  the 
accused  upon  the  subjects  embraced  in  the  questions  which  I  send  to  the  desk 
and  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  before  I  vote  on  the  question  under  consideration, 

Tlie  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

In  what  way  does  the  evidence  the  counsel  for  the  accused  now  otfer  meet  any  of  the 
allegations  contained  in  the  Impeachment? 

How  does  it  affect  the  gravamen  of  any  one  of  the  charges  ? 

Mr.  Evarts;  The  senators  will  perceive  that  this  question  anticipates  a  very 
43  I  P 


674  IMPEA.CHMEXT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

extensive  field  of  inquiry,  first  as  to  what  the  gravamen  of  all  these  articles  is ; 
and  secondly,  as  to  what  shall  finally  be  determined  to  be  the  limits  of  law  and 
fact  that  properly  press  upon  the  issues  here;  but  it  is  enough  to  say,  probably, 
as  we  have  every  desire  to  meet  the  question  with  all  the  intelligence  that  we 
can  command,  at  the  present  stage  of  the  matter,  without  going  into  these 
anticipations,  that  it  bears  upon  the  question  of  the  intent  with  which  this  act 
was  done,  as  being  a  qualification  of  the  act  in  the  President's  mind  at  the  time 
he  announces  it  as  complete.  It  bears  on  the  conspiracy  articles,  and  it  bears 
upon  the  eleventh  article,  even  if  it  should  be  held  that  the  earlier  articles,  upon 
the  mere  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  appointment  of  General  Thomas,  are  to 
cease  in  the  point  of  theirinquiry,intent,andall,  with  the  consummation  of  the  acts. 

]\Ir.  Manager  Wilson.  A  question  was  asked  by  a  member  of  the  Senate  as 
to  the  date  of  the  conversation  between  the  President  and.  Mr.  Perrin.  That 
was  on  the  21st ;  but  a  few  moments  after  the  conversation  between  the  Presi- 
dent and  Mr.  Welles. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  restate  to  the  Senate  the  ques- 
tion as  it  presents  itself  to  his  mind.  The  question  yesterday  had  reference  to 
libe  intention  of  the  President,  not  in  relation  to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  as 
the  Chief  Justice  understood  it,  but  in  relation  to  the  immediate  appointment 
of  a  successor  by  sending  in  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewiiig.  The  question  to- 
day relates  to  the  intention  of  the  President  in  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton  ;  and 
i|,  relates  to  a  communication  made  to  his  cabinet  after  the  departmental  busi- 
ness had  closed,  but  before  the  cabinet  had  separated.  The  Chief  Justice  is 
clearly  of  opinion  that  this  is  a  part  of  the  transaction,  and  that  it  is  entirely 
proper  to  take  this  evidence  into  consideration  as  showing  the  intent  of  the  Presi- 
dent in  his  acts.     The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  Morton.  I  should  like  to  hear  the  proposition  read.     I  was  not  in. 

The  Chikf  Justice,  (to  the  Secretary.)     llead  the  proposition. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  on  this  occasion  the  President  commiuiicated  to  Mr.  Welles,  and 
the  other  members  of  his  cabinet,  before  the  meeting  broke  up,  that  he  had  removed  Mr. 
Stanton  and  appointed  General  Thoma.s  Secretary  of  War  ad  mtenm ;  and  that,  upon  the 
inquiry  by  Mr.  Welles  whether  General  Thomas  was  in  possession  of  the  oiBce,  the  Presi- 
dent replied  that  he  .was;  and  upon  further  question  of  Mr.  Welles,  whether  Mr.  Stanton 
acquiesced,  the  President  replied  that  he  did  ;  all  that  he  required  was  time  to  remove  his 
papers. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas,  26  ;  nays,  23 ;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Cole,  Conkling,  Corbett,  Davis,  Dixon, 
Doolittle,  Fe.sscndeu,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCroery,  Morton.  Pfttterson 
of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Slaerman,  Sprague,  Sumner,  TmrnbuU,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers, 
and  Willey— 2B. 

Na^  .s— Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Conncss,  Cragin,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry.  Freling- 
li^iy.sen,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  Patterson 
of  New  Hampshire,  I'omeroy,  Ramsey,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and 
Yates— 23. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Chandler,  Henderson,  Norton,  Nye,  and  Wade — 5. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  On  this  question  the  yeas  are  26.  and  the  nays  are  23. 

Mr.  Chandler,  (who  had  just  (entered  the  chamber.)  Mr.  President 

The  Chikf  Justice.  It  is  too  late.  The  result  has  been  announced.  The 
yeas  have  it ;  and  the  question  is  admitted. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  (to  the  witness.)  Please  state,  Mr.  AVelles,  what  coinraunicalion 
was  made  by  the  President  to  the  cabinet  on  the  subject  of  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Stanton  and  the  appointment  of  General  Thomas,  and  what  passed  at  that  time? 

The  WiTNE.ss.  As  I  remarked,  after  the  departmental  business  had  been  dis- 
posed of,  the  President  remarked,  as  usual,  when  he  has  anything  to  communi- 
cate himself,  that  before  they  separated  it  would  be  proper  for  him  to  say  that 
he  had  removed  Mr.  Stanton  and  appointed  the  Adjutant  General,  Lorenzo 
Thomas,  Secretary  ad  mtcrim.     I  asked  whether  General  Thomas  was  in  pos- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  675 

session.  The  President  said  he  was ;  that  Mr.  Stanton  require(l  some  little  time 
to  remove  his  writings,  his  papers.  I  said  perhaps,  or  I  asked,  "  Mr  Stanton, 
then,  acquiesces  ?"     He  said  \}fi  did,  as  he  understood  it. 

Q.  Was  it  a  part  of  the  President's  answer  that  all  he  required  was  time  to 
remove  his  papers  ? 

A.  The  President  made  that  remark  when  I  inquired  in  relation  to  posaea- 
sion,  that  he  merely  wanted  time  lo  remove  his  papers — some  private  papers 
and  matters,  1  think. 

Q.  Was  the  time  at  which  this  announcement  of  the  President  was  made  in 
accordance  with  the  ordinary  routine  of  your  meetings  as  to  such  matters  ? 

A.  It  was.     The  President  usually  communicates  after  we  have  got  through. 

Q.  After  you  have  got  through  with  the  several  departmental  affairs  1 

A.  Yes,  sii- ;  he  then  states  what  he  has  to  communicate. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  one  moment  to  a  matter  which  you  spoke  of  incidentally.  You 
were  there  the  next  morning  about  noon  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q,   Did  you  then  see  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Ewing  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  W^as  it  made  out  before  you  came  there,  or  after,  or  while  you  were  there? 

A.  While  I  was  there. 

Q.  And  you  then  saw  it  ? 

A.  I  saw  it. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  time  of  the  day  was  that  1 

The  WriNKSS.  It  was  about  12.  The  Attorney  General  was  there,  and 
said  that  he  must  be  at  the  Supreme  Court.  He  had  not  more  than  time  to  get 
to  the  court. 

By  Mr.  EvARTS: 

Q.  Did  not  the  Supreme  Court  meet  at  11  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  He  had  business  which  required  him  to  be  at  the 
Supreme  Court  at  12  o'clock,  I  think.     He  was  there  up  to  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  become  aware  of  the  passage  of  the  civil-tenure  act,  as  it  is  called, 
.  at  or  about  the  time  that  it  passed  Congress? 

A.   I  was  aware  of  it. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  any  cabinet  meeting  at  which,  after  the  passage  of 
that  act,  it  became  the  subject  of  consideration  ? 

A-  Yes  ;  on  two  occasions. 

Q.  Who  were  present,  and  when  was  the  first  occasion  1 

A.  The  first  occasion  when  it  was  brought  before  the  cabinet  was  Friday,  I 
think,  the  26th  of  February,  1867.     It  was  at  a  cabinet  meeting  on  Friday. 

Q.  Who  were  present  1 

A.  I  think  all  the  cabinet  were. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Stanton  there? 

A.  Mr.  Stanton  was  there,  I  think,  on  that  occasion.  I  might  state,  perhaps,, 
that  the  President  said  he  had  two  bills  which  he  wanted  the  advice  of  the  cab- 
inet about.     One  of  them  consumed  most  of  the  time  that  day. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  The  point,  I  believe,  is  as  to  what  took  ^lace  there. 
By  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  This  civil-tenure  act  was  the  subject  of  consideration  there  ? 

A.  It  was  submitted. 

Q.  How  was  it  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  cabinet  ? 

A.  By  the  President. 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  consideration  in  the  cabinet  ? 

A.  For  consultation';  for  the  advice  and  the  opinion  of  the  members-. 

Q.  How  did  he  submit  the  matter  to  your  consideration  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  that  involves  anything  that  he  said — 

Mr.  Evarts.  Yes,  it  does. 


G76  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Now,  we  should  like  to  have,  so  that  we  may  not  dis- 
cuss this  matter  in  the  dark,  the  offer  put  in  writing  ;  but  we  object  to  anything 
that  took  place  in  the  cabinet  consultation,  and  in  order  to  have  this  matter 
brought  to  a  point,  we  de8ire  to  have  the  offer  of  proof  put  in  writing. 

Mr.  EvA«T.s.  We  will  put  the  whole  matter  in  writing. 

The  offer  was  reduced  to  writing  and  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  follows  : 

We  ofter  to  prove  that  tfie  President,  at  a  meetinj^  of  tlie  cabinet  while  the  bill  was  before 
the  President  lor  his  approval,  laid  before  the  cabinet  the  tenure-ot-civil-office  bill  for  their 
consideration  and  advice  to  the  President  respecting  his  approval  of  tlie  bill;  and  thereupon 
the  members  of  tlie  cabinet  then  present  gave  their  advice  to  tlie  President  tliat  the  bill  was 
unconstitutional,  and  should  be  returned  to  Congress  with  his  olyections,  and  that  the  duty 
of  preparing  a  message,  setting  forth  the  objections  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill,  was 
devolved  on  Mr.  iSeward  and  Mr.  Stanton ;  to  be  followed  by  proof  as  to  what  was  done  by 
the  President  and  cabinet  up  to  the  time  of  sending  in  the  message. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Does  that  give  the  date? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  gives  the  date  as  being  the  time  the  bill  was  before  them  for 
consideration. 

Mr.  CoNKLlNG.  During  the  ten  days  succeeding  its  first  passage  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  omitted  the  precise  date  because  there  were  two  meetings. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Within  the  ten  days,  1  suppose? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Within  the  time  fixed  by  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  assumed,  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  for  the  purpose 
of  *the  objection,  that  the  time  to  which  this  offer  of  proof  refers  itself  is  during 
the  ten  days  between  the  first  passage  of  the  bill  by  the  two  houses  and  the 
time  of  its  return,  with  the  objections  of  the  President,  for  redeliberation  and 
reconsideration. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  so  stated. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Upon  this  question  I  only  propose  to  open  the  debate 
in  order  that  my  learned  friends  may  be  possessed,  so  far  as  I  may  be  able  to 
possess  them,  of  the  grounds  of  our  objection.  The  question  is  whether,  after  a 
law  has  been  passed,  under  the  due  forms  of  law,  the  President  can  show  what 
his  opinions  were,  and  the  opinions  of  his  cabinet,  before  it  was  passed,  as  a 
justification  for  refusing  to  obey  it  and  execute  it.  That  is  the  first  proposition. 
Let  me  restate  it  and  see  if  I  have  made  any  mistake.  It  is  whether  the  Presi-  ' 
dent  can  show  his  opinions  and  those  of  his  cabinet  as  to  the  constitution- 
ality of  a  law,  before  the  law  is  passed,  in  order  to  justify  himself  for  refusing 
to  obey  it  and  execute  it  after  it  is  passed. 

I  am  not  now,  in  stating  this  objection,  dealing  with  the  vehicle  of  proof,  Tiut 
with  the  question  whether  declarations  in  the  cabinet  can  or  cannot  be  a  mode 
of  proof.  1  ventured  to  say  to  you,  senators,  that  heretofore  the  struggle  bas 
been,  on  the  trial  of  impeachments,  whether  the  king's  order  should  sustain  the 
minister;  and  I  was  somewhat  sharply  reminded  how  familiar  it  was  to  every- 
body that  the  king  could  do  no  wrong  in  the  eye  of  the  British  constitution,  and 
therefore  that,  of  course,  the  ministers  were  responsible.  But  tlie  qitestiim  which 
I  brought  to  your  attention  was  that  the  struggle  in  impeachments  in  former 
times  was  whether  the  king,  not  being  able  to  do  anything  wrong,  when  he  gave 
his  express  order  or  advice  to  the  minister,  could  shield  the  minister ;  and  the 
British  Parliament,  in  the  Earl  of  Danby's  case,  decided  that  it  could  not,  for 
he  produced  for  his  justification  the  order  of  the  king,  and  that  was  thought  to 
be  a  great  point. 

Now,  the  proposition  is,  we  having  got  a  king  who  is  responsible,  to  see  if 
we  cannot  have  the  ministers  sliield  the  king.  That  is  the  proposition  :  whether 
the  advice  of  the  cabinet  ministers  can  sliield  the  chief;  in  other  words, 
whether  the  Constitution  has  placed  these  heads  of  departments  around  him  as 
aids  or  shields.  That  is  the  question ;  because  if  that  c;in  be  done,  then 
impeachment  is  ended  in  this  country  for  any  breach  of  law,  for  there  will  be  no 
I'rcFident  who  cannot  find  cabinets  subservient  enough  to  advise  him  as  he 
wants  to  be  advised,  especially   if  they  are  dependent  upon  his  will,  and  he 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  677 

cannot  be  restrained  bj  law  from  removing  them.  If  he  has  this  power,  as  he 
said  he  had,  in  a  message  which  is  appended  as  one  of  his  exhibits,  in  which 
he  also  says  that  if  Mr.  Stanton  had  told  him  that  he  thought  that  law  was 
consiitiitioual,  lie  would  have  removed  him  before  it  went  into  effect,  then  any 
President  can  find  a  cabinet  sub-ervient  enough  to  him  to  give  him  advice,  and 
if  that  advice  can  shield  him  there  is  an  end 

Mr.  Curtis.  Allow  me  to  interrupt  you,  Mr.  Manager,  to  undei-stand  what 
you  are  saying.     What  message  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Mr.  Managrr  BuTLER.  Lest  I  should  make  any  mistake,  perhaps  I  had  bet- 
ter read  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  only  want  to  know  what  message  you  refer  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  read  it;  if  you  will  spare 
me  a  moment,  1  will  give  you  the  page.  [Examining  the  official  report.]  I  do 
not  find  it.  I  am  certain,  however,  it  is  in  one  of  the  messages  ;  I  think  in  the 
message  of  December  12,  1867,  you  will  find  the  phrase.  I  refer  to  one  of  the 
messages  given  in  evidence  in  this  case  in  which  (and  with  the  leave  of  the 
counsel  and  the  Senate  I  will  take  care  that  the  exact  quotation  appears  in  my 
remarks,)  he  says,  in  substance,  that  if  Mr.  Stanton  had  informed  him  that-he 
would  not  leave  upon  being  asked  under  this  law,  he  would  have  taken  care  to 
remove  him  before  it  went  into  operation,  or  words  to  that  effect.  I  say  if  that 
unlimited  power  can  be  held  by  the  President,  then  he  can  always  defend  him- 
self by  his  cabinet.  Let  us  look  at  it  in  the  light  of  another  great  criminal 
whom  you,  sir,  may  be  called  upon  to  try  some  time  or  otlur.  I  have  no  doubt 
he  had  a  cabinet  around  him  by  whose  advice  he  can  defend  himself  for  most  of 
the  treasons  which  he  committed.     I  have  no  doubt  at  all  upon  that  proposition. 

Let  us  take  it  in  another  view.  1  have  had  gentlemen  say  to  me  upon  this 
question,  "Why,  would  you  not  allow  a  military  commander,  who  should  either 
make  a  battle  or  forbear  a  battle,  to  show  that  he  called  a  council  of  officers,  and 
what  their  advice  was,  to  justify  him  in  the  case  of  his  refusal  to  give  battle  or 
of  his  giving  battle  improvidently  ?"  To  that  I  answer  that  I  would  do  so,  but 
I  make  a  wide  distinction  :  I  would  not  let  any  general  call  around  him  his 
staff  officers,  dependent  on  his  breath  for  their  official  existence,  and  allow  them 
to  show  their  opinions  as  a  shield  for  his  acts. 

I  do  not,  as  1  said,  propose  by  any  means  to  argue  this  question.  I  proposed 
simply  when  I  rose  to  open  the  proposition,  and  I  desire  to  put  in  a  single 
authority  as  a  justification  why  I  did  myself  the  honor  to  say  that  Jefferson 
thought  it  the  better  opinion  that  the  constitutional  right  of  the  cabinet  was  to 
give  opinions  in  writing,  and  that  is  the  better  constitutional  principle.  I  hold 
in  my  hand  Story's  Commentaries  on  the  Constitution,  second  volume,  and  I 
read  the  third  note  to  section  1494  : 

Mr.  Jefferson  has  informed  ns  that  in  Washington's  administration  for  measures  of  diffi- 
culty a  consultation  was  held  with  the  heads  of  departments,  either  assembled  or  takiuff 
their  opinions  separately,  in  conversation  or  in  writing.  In  his  own  administration  he  fol- 
lowed the  practice  of  assembling  the  heads  of  departments  as  a  cabinet  council ;  but  he  has 
added  that  he  thinks  the  course  of  requiring  the  separate  opinion  in  writing  of  each  liead  of 
a  department  is  most  strictly  within  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  for  the  other  does  in  fact 
transform  the  Executive  into  a  directory.     (4  Jefferson's  Correspondence,  143,  144.) 

I  have  here,  and  I  only  propose  to  refer  to  it,  in  the  third  volume  of  Adams's 
works,  in  the  appendix,  an  opinion  of  Mr.  Jefferson  furnished  to  General  Wash- 
ington upon  the  question  of  Washington's  right  to  fix  the  grade  of  ambassadors, 
the  right  to  appoint  being  in  the  Constitution,  and  whether  the  Senate' had  a 
right  to  negative  that  grade  so  fixed  by  the  President.  There  is  an  example  of 
one  of  the  opinions  that  President  Washington  required  of  his  Secretary  of 
State  as  early  as  April  24,  1790,  upon  this  very  question  of  appointment  to 
office,  and  we  have  it  now  to  be  seen  and  read  of  all  men  ;  whereas  if  it  had 
not  been  lor  this  trial,  we  never  should  have  known  what  the  opinion  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Navy  was  on  this  great  constitutional  question. 


678  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Before  I  sit  down  I  will  coll  the  attention  of  the  learned  counsel  (Mr.  Curtis) 
to  the  message  to  which  I  referred.  It  will  be  found  on  the  46th  page  of  the 
proceedings  of  this  trial,  and  the  words  are : 

If  any  one  of  these  gentlemen  had  then  said  to  me  tliat  he  would  avail  himself  of  the  pro- 
visions of  that  bill  ill  case  it  became  a  law,  I  should  not  have  hesitated  a  moment  as  to  his 
removal. 

Mr.  Curtis,  What  message  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Of  the  12th  of  December,  1867,  on  the  suspension  of 
Mr.  Stanton.  It  is  in  evidence,  and  will  be  found  on  the  46th  page  of  the 
proceedings. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  understand  that  the  managers  have  exhausted  their  open- 
ing argument  on  this  point  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Evakts.  The  difference,  as  we  understood,  between  the  honorable  man- 
ager'n  statement  of  what  was  contained  in  the  message  and  what  is  really  iu 
the  message,  is  that  he  put  it  upon  the  President's  statement  that  if  it  had  beeu 
pronounced  a  constitutional  law  by  Mr.  Stanton  he  would  have  removed  him. 
Tlig  point  of  the  President's  statement  was  that  there  was  a  concurrence  of  all 
the  Secretaries  Avho  were  appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  that  they  were  not  within 
the  law ;  and  if  they  had  taken  the  opposite  ground  there  would  then  have  been 
an  opportunity  for  him  to  have  cabinet  ministers  of  his  owu  appointment  for 
the  law  to  take  effect  upon. 

The  question  as  stated  by  the  honorable  manager  is,  whether  the  President 
can  show  his  opinions  and  the  advice  of  his  cabinet  as  to  the  unconstitutionality 
of  a  law  as  a  justification  of  his  refusal  to  obey  the  law.  That  is  the  proposi- 
tion on  which  they  rest  their  argument.  Now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators, 
this  involves  more  or  less  the  general  merits  of  this  case,  as  they  have  been  neces- 
»<arily,  perhaps,  somewhat  anticipated  by  incidental  arguments ;  but  we  do  not 
propose  to  occupy  your  time  with  preliminary  dis^cussions  of  what  must  form  a 
very  large  and  important  part  of  the  final  considerations  to  be  disposed  of  in 
this  caee.  It  is  enough  in  reference  to  the  question  of  evidence  Avhen  it  is  intro- 
duced in  a  trial,  that  it  should  be  apparent  that  the  premises  of  consideration 
both  of  fact  and  of  law  in  the  different  views  that  are  to  be  insisted  upon,  and 
in  the  different  views  that  may  be  maintained  by  the  court  within  those  prem- 
ises, permit  the  introduction  of  evidence  authentic  in  itself  and  trustworthy,  to 
be  used  and  applied  according  to  the  final  theory  of  law  and  fact  as  the  court 
shall  adopt  it. 

Now,  the  proposition  in  this  matter  on  the  part  of  the  managers  may-be  stated 
briefly  thus,  as  it  has  often  been  repeated,  that  in  regard  to  the  civil-tenure  act,  if 
what  was  done  by  the  President  on  the  21rt  of  Februarj',  1868,  in  the  writing 
out  and  delivery  of  these  two  orders,  one  upon  Mr.  Stanton  to  surrender,  and 
one  to  General  Thomas  to  take  charge  of  the  surrendered  office,  if  those  two 
papers  make  a  consummate  crime,  then  the  law  imports  an  intent  to  do  the 
thing  done,  and  so  to  commit  the  crime,  and  that  all  else  is  inapplicable  legally 
within  the  purview  of  an  impeachment  and  its  trial  as  much  as  it  might  or  would 
be  upon  a  question  of  a  formal  infraction  of  a  statute  under  an  indictment  pun- 
ishable by  fine.  That  is  one  view.  It  will  be  for  you  to  determine  hereafter 
whether  a  violation  of  a  statute,  however  complete,  is  necessarily  a  high  crime 
and  misdemeanor  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  for  which  this  remedy 
of  impeachment  must  be  sought,  and  mnst  carry  its  punishments. 

So,  too,  it  is  not  to  be  foigotten  that  in  the  matter  of  defence  the  bearing  of 
all  the  circumstances  of  intent,  and  of  deliberation,  and  inquiry,  ami  pursuit  of 
duty  on  the  part  of  a  great  official  to  arrive  at  and  determine  what  is  liis  oflicial 
duty,  under  an  ai)j)arent  conflict  between  the  Constitution  and  the  law,  forms  a 
part  of  the  general  issue  of  impeachment  and  defence.  Our  answer,  undoubtedly, 
does  set  forth  and  claim  that  whatever  we  have  done  in  the  premises  has  been 
done  upon  the  President's  judgment  of  his  duty  under  the  Constitution  of  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  679 

United  States,  and  after  that  deliberate  and  responsible,  uprij^ht  and  sincere 
effort  to  get  all  the  aid  and  light  on  the  snbject  of  his  duty  tluit  was  accessible 
v.'ithin  his  powers.  One  of  the  most  importa\)t,  one  always  recognized  as  among 
the  most  important  of  the  aids  and  guides,  supports,  and  defences  which  the 
Chief  Magistrate  of  the  country  is  to  have  in  the  opinion  of  th'-  people  at  largo, 
iu  the  opinion  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  in  the  opinion  even  of  judicial  con- 
sideration, when  a  case  shall  properly  come  before  a  court,  of  whether  he  has 
pursued  his  duty  or  attempted  to  pursue  his  duty,  is  the  view  that  these  chief 
officers  of  the  government  (nnder  his  constitutioiml  right  to  call  upon  them  for 
their  opinions,  and  under  the  practice  of  this  government  to  convene  them  in 
council  for  the  purpose  of  arriving  at  those  opinions)  have  given  him  in  regard 
to  the  proposed  matter  of  conduct  and  duty. 

And  this  matter  of  evidence  here  touches  that  part  of  the  case,  and  is  to  sup- 
ply that  portion  of  the  evidence  of  what  care,  what  deliberation,  what  advice 
attended  the  steps  of  the  President  as  he  proceeded  in  the  stress  in  which  he 
was  placed  of  the  obligation  of  the  Constitution  in  respect  to  an  act  of  Congress 
which  had  received  the  constitutional  majorities  of  the  two  houses  in  the  very 
matter  in  which  he  was  called  upon  to  proceed,  not  by  a  voluntary  case  assumed 
by  him,  but  in  a  matter  pressing  upon  his  duty  as  President  in  I'egard  tt^  the 
conduct  of  one  of  the  chief  departments  of  the  government. 

That  is  the  range  of  the  issue,  and  that  is  the  application  of  this  evidence. 
That  it  bears  upon  the  issue,  and  is  authentic  testimony  within  the  range  of  the 
President's  right  and  duty  to  aid  and  support  himself  in  the  performance  of  his 
office,  cannot  be  doubted. 

But  it  is  said  that  this  involves  matter  of  grave  constitutional  difficulty,  and  that 
if  this  kind  of  evidence  is  to  be  adduced  that  will  be  the  end  of  all  impeachment 
trials,  for  it  will  be  equivalent  to  the  authority  claimed  under  the  British  con- 
stitution, but  denied,  that  the  king's  order  should  shield  the  minister.  Whenever 
any  such  pretension  as  that  is  set  forth  here,  that  the  order  of  the  cabinet  in 
council  for  any  act  of  the  President  is  to  shield  him  from  his  amenability  under 
the  Constitution  fur  trial  and  judgment  upon  his  act  before  this  constitutiowal  trib- 
unal, it  will  be  time  enough  to  insist  upon  the  argument,  or  to  attempt  an  answer. 

But  it  is  produced  here  as  being  a  part  of  the  conduct  of  the  President,  the 
whole  of  whose  conduct,  as  it  shall  be  displayed  before  you  in  evidence,  is  to 
furnish  the  basis  in  fact  for  your  judgment  and  sentence  concerning  it  under  the 
view  of  the  Constitution  and  the  law.  Nor  is  there  any  fear  that  any  such 
privilege,  or  any  such  right,  as  we  call  it,  should  interfere  with  the  due  power 
of  this  tribunal  and  the  proper  responsibility  of  all  great  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment to  it.  On  the  questions  that,  as  we  suppose,  make  up  the  sum  and  cata- 
logue of  crimes  against  the  state  within  the  general  proposition  of  impeachable 
offences,  it  is  impossible  that  matters  of  this  kind  should  come  into  play.  On 
treason  or  bribery  or  offences  involving  turpitude,  and  sinning  against  the  pub- 
lic welfare,  uo  such  matters  can  properly  ever  come  in  play.  Of  course,  in  some 
matters  of  conduct  of  foreign  affairs,  if  our  Constitution  permitted  the  implica- 
tion of  doubtful  conduct  as  within  the  range  of  treason,  which  it  does  not,  it 
might  be  supposed  that  the  constitutional  advisers  might,  by  their  opinions, 
support  the  President  in  his  conduct,  if  that  was  made  the  subject  of  accusation. 

But  here  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  very  matter  that  is  in  controversy  must 
be  regarded  by  the  court  in  determining  whether  this  species  of  evidence  is 
applicable  ;  and  in  determining  its  applicability  I  need  not  repeat  before  so 
learned  a  court  that  the  question  of  its  weight  and  force  is  not  to  be  anticipated. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  I  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  now  adjourn. 
{"No,  no."]  I  will  say  that  I  make  this  motion  at  request,  because  this  question 
will  be  argued  at  length,  and  it  is  now  late. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  ayes  30,  noes  hot  counted  ;  and  the  Senate  sitting 
for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment  adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  11  o'clock. 


680  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Saturday,  Afril  18,  1S6S. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  took  th'^  chair  at  11  o'clock  a.  m. 

The  usual  prochimation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeant  at-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  counsel  for  the  respondent,  except  Mr.  Stanbery,  appeared  and 
took  the  seats  assigned  them  respectively. 

The  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
preceded  by  Mr.  E.  B.  Washbyrne,  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  accompanied 
by  the  Speaker  and  Clerk,  appeared  and  were  conducted  to  the  seats  provided 
for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  Journal  of  yesterday's 
proceedings. 

Mr.  Strwart.  I  move  to  dispense  with  the  reading  of  the  Journal. 

Mr  Drake.  I  object. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  senator  from  Missouri  objects.  The  Secretary  will 
proceed  with  the  reading. 

The  Chief  Clerk  read  the  Journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  of  the  Senate 
Bitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment. 

The  Chief  Ju.stice.  At  the  adjournment  yesterday  the  Senate  had  under 
consideration  an  offer  to  prove  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  for  the  President.  The 
offer  will  now  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  the  President  at  a  raeetinjr  of  the  cabinet,  while  the  bill  was  before 
the  President  for  his  approval,  laid  before  the  cabinet  the  teii«re-of-civil-i  ffice  bill  for  their 
consideration  and  advice  to  the  President  respecting^  his  approval  of  the  bill ;  and  thereupon 
the  members  of  the  cabinet  then  present  gave  their  advice  to  the  President  that  the  bill  was 
unconstitutional  and  should  be  returned  to  Congress  with  his  objections,  and  that  the  duty 
of  preparing  a  message,  setting  forth  the  objections  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill,  was 
devolved  ou  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  Stanton ;  to  be  followed  by  proof  as  to  what  was  done  by 
the  President  and  cabinet  up  to  the  time  of  sending  in  the  message. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  honorable  managers  desire  to  be  heard  further  ? 
Mr.  Manager  WiLSOiV.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JoHNSOiV.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  wish  to  put  a  question  to  the  counsel  for 
the  President. 

The  question  was  sent  to  the  desk  and  read,  as  follows : 

Do  the  counsel  understand  that  the  managers  deny  the  stateinent  made  by  the  President 
in  his  message  of  December  12,  1867,  in  evidence  as  given  by  the  managers  at  page  4.5  of 
the  official  report  of  the  trial,  that  the  members  of  the  cabinet  gave  hiin  the  opinion  there 
stated  as  to  the  tenure-of-oflfice  act ;  and  is  the  evidence  offered  to  corroborate  that  state- 
ment, or  for  what  other  object  is  it  offered  1 

Mr.  Howard.  I  have  a  query  to  propound  to  the  counsel,  also. 
Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Secretary,  will  you  send  me  that  question,  please  ? 
The  question  of  Mr.  Johnson  was  sent  to  the  counsel. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  wjU  read  the  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Michigan. 
'  The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

Do  the  counsel  for  the  accused  not  consider  that  the  validity  of  the  tcnure-of-dffice  bill  was 
purely  a  question  of  law,  to  be  determined  on  this  trial  by  the  Senate ;  and,  if  so,  do  they 
claim  that  the  opinion  of  the  cabinet  officers  touching  that  question  is  compoteut  evidence 
by  which  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  ought  to  bo  influenced  I 

Mr.  Edmunds,  (after  a  pause.)  I  inquire  of  the  Chair  whether  the  argument 
on  the  part  of  the  managers  cannot  proceed  while  the  gentlemen  for  the  defence 
are  considering  their  answers  to  these  questions,  which  may  take  some  time? 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  the  argument  on  the  part 
of  the  honorable  managers  may  proceed,  and  that  the  counsel  can  reply  to  these 
questions  in  their  argument.     That  course  will  be  taken  if  there  be  no  objection. 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  is  the  course  we  should  prefer,  Mr.  Chief  Justice.     We  will 


IMPEA.CHMENT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  6 SI 

reply  to  the  question  of  the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland,  and  also  to  that 
of  the  hoiioi  able  senator  from  Michigan,  iu  the  course  of  the  remarks  which  we 
desire  to  address  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Manager  Wilson.  Mr.  President  and  senators,  as  the  pending  objection 
confronts  one  of  the  most  important  questions  involved  in  tliis  case,  1  wish  to 
present  the  views  of  the  managers  respecting  it  with  such  care  and  exactness  as 
I  may  be  able  to  command. 

The  respondent  now  offers  to  prove,  doubtless  as  a  foundation  for  other  cabi- 
net action  of  more  recent  date,  that  he  was  advised  by  the  members  of  his  cabinet 
that  the  act  of  Congress  upon  which  rest  several  of  the  articles  to  which  he  has 
made  answer,  to  wit,  "  An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices," 
passed  March  2,  1S67,  was  and  is  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  void.  That 
he  was  so  advised  he  has  alleued  in  his  answer.  Whether  he  was  so  advised 
or  not  we  hold  to  be  immaterial  to  this  case,  and  irrelevant  to  the  issue  joined. 
The  House  of  Representatives  were  not  to  be  enti  apped,  in  tlie  preparation  of 
their  replication,  by  any  such  cunning  device,  nor  by  the  kindred  one,  whereby 
the  respondent  affirms  that  he  was  not  bound  to  execute  said  act  because  he 
believed  it  to  be  unconstitutional.  The  replication  says  that  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives — 

Do  deny  each  and  every  averment  in  said  several  answers,  or  either  of  them,  which  denies 
or  traverses  the  acs,  intents,  crimes,  or  misdemeHuors  charged  against  said  Andrew  Johnson 
in  the  said  articles  of  impeachment,  or  either  of  them  ;  and  for  replication  to  said  answer  do  say 
that  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  tlie  United  States,  is  guilty  of  the  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors  mentioned  in  said  articles,  &c 

There  is  no  acceptance  here  of  the  issue  tendered  by  the  respondent,  and  in 
support  of  which  he  offers  the  immaterial,  incompetent,  and  irrelevant  testimony 
to  which  we  object.  The  advice  which  he  may  have  received,  and  the  belief 
which  he  may  have  formed  touching  the  constitutionality  of  said  act,  cannot  be 
allowed  to  shield  him  from  the  consequences  of  his  criminal  acts.  Nor  can  his 
mistaken  view  of  the  Coustituion  relative  to  his  right  to  require  the  opinions 
of  the  heads  of  the  several  executive  departments  upon  certain  questions  aid  his 
efforts  to  escape  from  the  just  demands  of  violated  law.  In  his  answer  to  the 
first  art  cle  he  alleges  : 

This  respondent  had,  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitutioo,  required  the  opinion  of  each  piun 
cipal  oflicer  of  the  executive  departments  upon  this  question  of  constitutional  executive  power 
and  duty,  and  had  been  advised  by  each  of  them,  including  the  said  Stanton,  Secretary  for 
the  Department  of  War,  that,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  this  power  [of 
removal]  was  lodged  by  the  Constitution  in  the  Pi esident  of  the  United  !States,  and  that, 
consequently,  it  could  be  lawfully  exercised  by  him.  and  the  Congress  could  not  deprive  him 
thereof. 

The  respondent  found  no  provision  in  the  Constitution  authorizing  him  to 
pursue  any  such  course.     The  Constitution  says  the  President — 

May  require  the  opinion,  in  writing,  of  the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the  executive 
departments  upon  any  subject  relating  to  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices.  (Artfcle  2, 
section  2. ) 

Not  of  his  office,  not  of  the  legislative  department,  nor  of  the  judicial  depart- 
ment. But  when  did  he  require  the  opinions  and  receive  the  advice  under 
cover  of  which  he  now  seeks  to  escape  1  His  answer  informs  us  that  this  all 
transpired  prior  to  his  veto  of  the  bill  "  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil 
offices."  Upon  those  unwritten  opinions  and  that  advice  be  b;ised  his  veto  of 
said  bill,  and  fashioned  the  character  of  his  message.  He  communicated  his 
objections  to  Congress  ;  they  were  overruled  by  both  houses,  and  the  bill  waa 
enacted  into  a  law  in  manner  and  form  as  prescribed  by  the  Constitution.  He 
does  not  say  that  since  the  final  passage  of  the  act  he  has  been  further  advised 
by  the  principal  officers  of  each  of  the  executive  departments  that  he  is  not 
bound  to  enforce  it.  And  if  he  had  done  so,  he  would  have  achieved  a  result 
of  no  possible  benefit  to  himself,  but  dangerous  to  his  advisers,  for  it  will  bo 


682  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

borne  in  mind  that  the  articles  charge  that  he  "  did  unlawfully  conspire  with 
one  Lorenzo  Thoma?,  and  with  other  persons  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
unknown."  He  might  have  disclosed  that  these  unknown  persons  were  the 
members  of  his  cabinet.  This  disclosure  might  have  jdaced  them  in  jeopardy 
without  diminishing  the  peril  wliich  attends  upon  his  own  predicament. 

It  is  not  d  fficult  to  see  that  the  line  of  defence  to  which  we  have  directed  the 
present  objection  involves  the  great  question  of  this  case.  It  tends  to  matters 
more  weighty  than  a  mere  resolution  of  the  technical  offences  which  float  on  the 
surface  of  this  prosecution.  Whoever  attempts  to  measure  the  magnitude  of  the 
case  by  the  comparatively  insignificant  acts  which  constitute  the  technical 
crimes  and  misdemeanors  with  which  the  respondent  stands  charged,  will  attain 
a  result  far  short  of  its  true  character,  and  be  rewarded  with  a  most  beggarly 
appreciation  of  the  immensity  of  its  real  proportions.  Far  above  and  below  and 
beyond  the.-=e  mere  technical  offences,  grave  as  they  iindoubtedly  are,  the  great 
question  which  you  are  to  settle  is  to  be  found.  It  envelops  the  whole  case 
and  everything  pertaining  thereto.  It  is  the  great  circle  which  bounds  the 
sphere  composed  of  the  multitude  of  questions  and  issues  presented  for  your 
determination.  The  respondent  is  arraigned  for  a  violation  of  and  a  refusal  to 
execute  the  law.  He  offers  to  prove  that  his  cabinet  advised  him  that  a  certain 
bill  presented  for  his  approval  was  in  violation  of  the  Constitution;  that  he 
accepted  their  advice  and  vetoed  the  bill;  and  upon  that,  and  such  additional 
advice  as  they  may  have  given  him,  claims  the  light  to  resist  and  defy  the  pro- 
visions of  the  bill,  notwithstanding  its  enactment  into  a  law  by  two-thirds  of 
both  houses  over  his  objections.  In  other  words,  he  claims,  substantially,  that 
he  may  determine  for  himself  what  laws  he  will  obey  and  execute,  and  what 
laws  he  will  disregard  and  refuse  to  enforce.  In  support  of  this  claim  he  offers 
the  testimony  which,  for  the  time  being,  is  excluded  by  the  objection  now  under 
discussion.  If  I  am  correct  in  this,  then  I  was  not  mistaken  when  I  asserted 
that  this  objection  confronts  one  of  the  most  important  questions  involved  in 
this  case.  It  may  be  said  that  this  testimony  is  ofiered  merely  to  disprove  the 
intent  alleged  and  charged  in  the  articles ;  but  it  goes  beyond  this  and  reaches 
the  main  questipn,  as  will  clearly  appear  to  the  mind  of  any  one  who  will  read 
with  care  the  answer  to  the  first  article.  The  testimony  is  improper  for  any 
purpose  and  in  every  view  of  the  case. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  article  two,  section  one,  provides 
that — 

The  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  a  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  person  at  present  exercising  the  functions  of  the  executive  office  is  the 
respondent  who  stands  at  your  bar  to-day,  charged  with  the  conmiission  of  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors  in  office.  Before  he  entered  upon  the  discharge  of  the 
duties  devolved  on  him  as  President  he  took  and  subscribed  the  constitutionally 
prescribed  oath  of  office,  in  words  as  follows : 

I  do  solemnly  swear  that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the  office  of  Presideiit  of  the  United 
States,  and  will  to  the  best  of  my  ability  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

This  oath  covers  every  part  of  the  Constitution,  imposes  the  duty  of  observing 
every  section  and  clause  thereof,  and  includes  the  distribution  of  powers  therein 
made.  The  powers  embraced  and  distributed  are  legislative,  executive  and  judi- 
cial.    Of  the  first  the  Constitution  declares  that — 

All  legislative  powers  herein  p;raiitefl  shall  be  vested  in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
which  shall  consist  of  a  Senate  and  Hotise  of  Koprosentativcs.     (Article  1,  section  I.) 

This  encircles  the  entire  range  of  legislative  action.  The  will  of  the  legisla- 
tive department  is  made  known  \>f  the  terms  of  the  bills  which  it  may  pass.  Of 
these  expressions  of  the  legishiti\e  will  the  Constitution  says  : 

Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  Senate  shall, 
before  it  becomes  a  law,  be  presented  to  tho  President  of  the  United  States ;  and  if  he  approve 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  683 

ho  shall  sign  it,  but  if  not  ho  shall  return  it  with  his  objections  to  that  house  in  which  it 
shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  objoctinn  at  largo  on  their  journal,  and  proceed 
to  recou.sider  it.  If,  after  such  recousideratioii,  two-thirds  of  that  house  shall  agree  to  pass  the 
bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together  with  the  objections,  to  the  other  house,  by  wliich  it  shall 
likewise  be  recousidered,  and,  if  approved  by  two-thirds  of  that  house,  it  shall  become  a 
\&\v.     (Article  1,  section?.) 

Thus  laws  are  made.  But  laws  cannot  execute  themselves.  However  wise, 
just,  necessary  they  may,  be,  they  are  lifeless  declarations  of  the  legislative  will 
until  clothed  with  the  power  of  action  by  other  departments  of  the  government. 

The  builders  of  our  Constitution  understood  with  great  exacttiess  the  philoso- 
phy of  government,  and  provided  for  every  contingency.  They  knew  that  laws 
to  be  effective  must  be  executed  ;  that  the  best  and  purest  law  could  not  perform 
its  proper  office  in  the  absence  of  executive  power ;  therefore  they  created 
that  power  and  vested  it  in  a  President  of  the  United  States.  To  insure  a  due 
execution  of  the  power,  they  imposed  the  duty  of  taking  and  subscribing  the 
oath  above  quoted  on  every  person  elected  to  the  presidential  office,  and  de- 
clared that  he  shoidd  comply  with  the  condition  "before  he  enter  on  the  execu- 
tion of  his  office."  Chief  among  the  executive  duties  imposed  by  the  Consti- 
tution and  secured  by  the  oath  is  the  one  contained  in  the  injunction  that  the 
President  "shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed."  (Article  2, 
section  3.)  What  laws?  Those  which  may  have  been  passed  by  the  legisla- 
tive department  in  manner  and  form  as  declared  by  that  section  of  the  Consti- 
tution heretofore  recited.  The  President  is  clothed  with  no  discretion  in  this 
regard.  Whatever  is  declared  by  the  legislative  power  to  be  the  law  the  Pres- 
ident is  bound  to  execute.  By  his  power  to  veto  a  bill  passed  by  both  houses 
of  Congress  he  may  challenge  the  legislative  will,  but  if  he  be  overruled  by  the 
two-third  voice  of  the  houses  he  must  respect  the  decision  and  execute  the  law 
which  that  constitutional  voice  has  spoken  into  existence.  If  this  be  not  true, 
then  the  executive  power  is  superior  to  the  legislative  power. _  If  the  executive 
will  may  declare  what  is  and  what  is  not  law,  why  was  a  legislative  department 
established  at  all?  Why  impose  on  the  President  the  constitutional  obligation 
to  "take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,"  if  he  may  determine  what 
acts  are  and  what  are  not  laws  ?  It  is  absurd  to  say  that  he  has  any  discretion 
in  this  regard.     He  must  execute  the  law. 

The  great  object  of  the  executive  department  is  to  accomplish  this  purpose  ;  and  without 
it,  be  the  form  of  government  whatever  it  may,  it  will  be  utterly  worthless  for  offence  or 
defence;  for  the  redress  of  grievances  or  the  protection  of  rights  ;  for  the  happiness  or  good 
order  or  safety  of  the  people.     (Story  on  the  Constitution,  vol.  2,  p.  419.) 

De  Tocqueville,  in  his  work  on  Democracy  in  America,  in  opening  the  chap- 
ter on  executive  power,  very  truly  remarks  that — 

The  American  legislators  undertook  a  difficult  task  in  attempting  to  create  an  executive 
power  dependent  on  the  majority  of  the  people,  and  nevertheless  sufficiently  strong  to  act 
without  restraint  in  its  own  sphere.  It  was  indispensable  to  the  maintenance  of  the  repub- 
lican form  of  government  that  the  representative  of  the  executive  power  should  be  subject 
to  the  will  of  the  nation.     (Volume  1,  p.  128.) 

The  task  was  a  difficult  one,  but  the  great  minds  from  which  our  Constitution 
sprung  were  equal  to  its  severest  demands.  They  created  an  executive  power 
strong  enough  to  execute  the  will  of  the  nation,  and  yet  sufficiently  weak  to  be 
controlled  by  that  will.  They  knew  that  "  power  will  intoxicate  the  best  of 
hearts,  as  wine  the  strongest  heads,"  and  therefore  they  surrounded  the  execu- 
tive agent  with  such  proper  restraints  and  limitations  as  would  confine  him  to 
the  boundaries  prescribed  by  the  national  will  or  crush  him  by  its  power  if  he 
stepped  beyond.  The  plan  adopted  was  most  perfect.  It  created  the  executive 
power ;  provided  for  the  selection  of  the  person  to  be  intrusted  with  its  exer- 
cise ;  determined  the  restraints  and  limitations  which  should  rest  upon,  guide, 
and  control  it  and  him,  and,  out  of  abundant  caution,  decreed  that — 

The  President  *  *  *  *  of  the  United  States  shall  be  removed  from  office 
on  impeachment  for,  and  conviction  of,  treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misde- 
meanors.    (Article  3,  section  4.) 


684  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

It  is  preposterous  for  the  respondent  to  attempt  to  defend  himself  against  the 
corrective  power  of  this  grand  remedy  by  interposing  the  opinions  or  advice  of 
the  principal  officers  of  the  executive  departments,  either  as  to  the  hody  of 
his  offence  or  the  intent  with  which  he  committed  it.  Ilis  highest  duty  is  to 
"take  care  that  the  laws  he  faithfully  executed;"  and  if  he  fail  in  this  particu- 
lar he  must  fail  in  all,  and  anarchy  will  usurp  the  throne  of  order.  The 
laws  are  hut  expressions  of  the  national  will,  which  c*n  be  made  known  only 
through  the  enactments  of  the  legislative  department  of  the  government.  A 
criminal  failure  to  execute  that  will  (and  every  willful  failure,  no  matter  what 
its  inducement  may  be,  is  ciimiual)  may  justly  call  into  action  the  remedial 
power  of  impeachment.  This  power  is,  by  the  express  terms  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, confided  to  one  branch  of  the  legislative  department,  in  these  words : 

The  House  of  Representatives  »  »  *  *  gjiaH  have  the  sole  power  of 

inipeachriieut.     CArticle  1,  section  2.) 

This  lodgment  of  the  most  delicate  power  known  to  the  Constitution  is  most 
wise  and  proper,  because  of  the  frequency  with  which  those  who  may  exercise 
it  are  called  to  account  for  their  conduct  at  the  bar  of  the  people,  and  this  is 
the  check  balanced  against  a  possible  abuse  of  the  power,  and  it  has  been  most 
effectual.  But  the  wisdom  which  fashioned  our  Constitution  did  not  stop  here. 
It  next  declared  that — 

The  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments.     (Article  1,  section  3. ) 

In  the  theory  of  our  Constitution  the  Senate  represents  the  States,  and  its 
members  being  removed  from  direct  accountability  to  the  people,  are  supposed 
to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  those  excitements  and  passions  which  so  frequt^ntly 
change  the  political  complexion  of  the  House  of  Ilepresentalives,  and  this  is  the 
more  immediate  check  provided  to  balance  the  possible  hasty  action  of  the 
representatives.  Wise,  considirate,  and  safe  to  the  perfect  work  of  demonstra- 
tion is  this  admirable  adjustment  of  the  powers  with  which  we  are  now  dealing. 
The  executive  power  was  created  to  enforce  the  will  of  the  nation ;  the  will  of 
the  nation  appears  in  its  laws  ;  the  two  houses  of  Congress  are  intrusted  with 
the  power  to  enact  laws,  the  objections  of  the  Executive  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding. Laws  thus  enacted,  as  well  as  those  which  receive  the  executive 
sanction,  are  the  voice  of  the  people.  If  the  person  clothed  for  the  time  being 
with  the  executive  power — the  only  power  which  can  give  effect  to  the  [leople's 
will — refuses  or  neglects  to  enforce  the  legislative  decrees  of  the  nation,  or  wil- 
fully violates  the  same,  what  constituent  elements  of  governmental  power  could 
be  more  properly  charged  with  the  right  to  present  and  ihe  means  to  try  and 
remove  the  contumacious  Executive  than  those  intrusted  with  the  power  to 
enact  the  laws  of  the  people,  guided  by  the  checks  and  balances  to  which  I  have 
directed  the  attention  of  the  Senate  ?  What  other  constituent  parts  of  the  gov- 
ernment could  so  well  understand  and  adjudge  of  a  perverse  and  criminal  refusal 
to  obey,  or  a  wilful  declination  to  execute,  the  national  will,  as  those  joining 
in  its  expression  1  There  can  be  but  one  answer  to  these  questions.  The 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  are  wise  and  just  beyond  the  power  of  dispu- 
tation in  leaving  the  entire  subject  of  the  responsibility  of  the  Executive  to 
faithfully  execute  his  office  and  enforce  the  laws  to  the  charge,  trial,  and  judg- 
ment of  the  two  several  branchi^s  of  the  legislative  department,  regardless  of  the 
opinions  of  cabinet  officers,  or  of  the  decisions  of  the  judicial  department.  The 
respondent  has  jilaccd  himself  within  this  power  of  impeachment  by  trampling 
on  the  constitutional  duty  of  the  Executive  and  violating  the  penal  laws  of  the 
land. 

I  readily  admit  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is,  in  almost  every 
respect,  different  from  the  constitution  of  Great  Britain.  The  latter  is,  to  a 
great  extent,  unwritten,  and  is,  in  all  regards,  subject  to  such  changes  as  Par- 
liament may  enact.  An  act  of  Parliament  may  change  the  constitution  of 
England,     In  this  country  the  rule  is  different.     The   Congress  may  enact  no 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PEESIDEI^T.  685 

law  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution.  The  enactments  of  Parliament  become  a 
part  of  the  Briti'^h  constitution.  The  will  of  Parliament  is  supreme.  The  will 
of  Congress  is  subordinate  to  the  written  Constitution  of  the  United  State?, 
but  not  to  be  judged  of  by  the  executive  department.  But  the  theories  upon 
which  the  two  constitutions  rest  at  the  present  time  are  almost  identical.  In 
both  the  executive  is  made  subordinate  to  the  legislative  power.  The  Commons 
of  England  tolerate  no  encroachments  on  their  powers  from  any  other  estate  of 
the  realm.  The  Parliament  is  the  supreme  power  of  the  kingdom,  in  spite  of 
'the  doctrine  that  "  the  king  can  do  no  wrong,"  and  in  spite  of  the  assertion  that 
the  exercise  of  the  sovereignty  rests  in  the  several  estates. 

The  kindred  character  of  the  theories  permeating  the  two  constitutions  may 

be  jllustrated  by  certain  parliamentary  and  ministerial  action  connected  with  the 

American  revolution,  and  which  wi  1  well  serve  the  purposes  of  my  argument. 

On  the  27th  day  of  February,  1782,  General  Conway  moved  in  the  House  of 

Commons  the  following  resolution  : 

That  it  is  tlie  opinion  of  this  house,  that  the  further  prosecution  of  offensive  war  on  the 
continent  of  North  America,  for  the  purpose  of  reducing:  the  revolted  colonies  to  obedience 
by  force,  will  be  the  means  of  weakening  the  efforts  of  this  country  api'aiust  lier  European 
enemies,  dangerously  to  increase  the  nmtual  enmity,  so  fatal  to  the  interests  both  of  Great 
Britain  and  America  ;  and  by  preventing  a  happy  reconciliation  with  that  country,  to  frustrate 
the  earnest  desire  graciou.sly  expressed  by  his  Majesty  to  restore  the  blessing  of  public  tran- 
quillity.    (Hansard,  vol.  22,  p.  1071.) 

The  Commons  passed  the  resolution.  The  ministry  did  not  seem  to  catch  its 
true  spirit,  and,  therefoi-e,  on  March  the  4th  next  following,  General  Conway 
moved  another  resolution  in  these  more  express  and  emphatic  terms,  to  wit : 

That  after  the  solemn  declaration  of  the  opinion  of  this  house  in  their  humble  address 
presented  to  his  Majesty  on  Friday  last,  and  his  Majesty's  assurance  of  his  gracious  inten- 
tion, in  pursuance  of  their  advice,  to  take  such  measures  as  shall  a])pear  to  his  Majesty  to 
be  most  couduciVe  to  the  restoration  of  harmony  between  Great  Britain  and  the  revolted 
colonies,  so  esSential  to  the  prosperity  of  both,  this  house  will  consider  as  enemies  to  his 
Majesty  and  this  country  all  those  who  shall  endeavor  to  frustrate  his  Majesty's  paternal 
care  for  the  ease  and  happiness  of  his  people,  by  advising  or  by  any  means  attempting  the 
further  pro-ecutiou  of  offensive  war  on  the  continent  of  North  America,  for  the  purpose  of 
reducing  the  revolted  colonies  to  obedience  by  force.     (Ibid.,  p.  lOSi). )    * 

This  resolution  led  to  an  animated  debate.  The  temper  of  the  Commons  was 
equal  to  the  directness  of  the  resolution.  The  ministry  saw  this  and  understood 
exactly  its  meaning.  They  were  disposed  to  avoid  the  implied  censure,  and 
attempted  to  show,  by  expressions  of  a  determination  to  observe  and  respect 
the  opinion  of  the  house  as  declared  in  the  first  resolution,  tliat  no  necessity 
existed  for  the  adoption  of  the  second.  To  effectuate  this  end  Lord  North,  the 
premier,  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  said : 

The  majority  of  that  house  had  resolved  that  peace  should  be  made  with  America,  and 
the  answer  given  from  the  throne  was  so  satisfactory  that  the  house  had  just  concurred  in 
a  motion  to  return  thanks  to  his  Majesty  for  making  it;  where,  therefore,  could  be  the  ground 
for  coming  to  a  resolution  which  .seemed  to  doubt  the  propriety  or  sincerity  of  tliat  answer? 
He  was  not  of  the  disposition  of  tlio.'je  who  complained  of  majorities  in  that  house  who 
condemned  them,  and  by  factious  and  seditious  misrepresentations  held  them  out  to  the 
public  in  the  most  odious  colors;  a  majority  of  that  house  was,  in  parliamentary  language, 
the  house  itself;  it  could  never  make  him  change  a  single  opinion,  yet  he  bowed  to  that 
opinion  wliich  was  sanctioned  by  the  majority;  though  he  might  not  be  a  convert  to  such 
opinion,  still  he  held  it  to  be  his  indispensable  duty  to  obey  it,  and  never  once  to  lose  sight 
of  it,  in  the  advice  which,  as  the  servant  of  the  Crown,  he  should  have  occasion  to  give  his 
sovereign.  It  was  the  right  of  that  house  to  command;  it  was  the  duty  of  a  minister  to 
obey  its  resolutions.  Parliament  had  already  expressed  its  desires  or  its  orders  ;  and  as  it  was 
scarcely  possible  that  a  minister  should  be  found  hardy,  daring,  infamous  enough  to  advise 
his  sovereign  to  differ  in  opinion  from  his  Parliament,  so  he  could  not  think  the  present 
motion,  which  must  suppose  the  existence  of  such  a  minister,  could  be  at  all  necessary. 
(Ibid.,  p.  109U.) 

And  again  he  said  : 

To  the  policy  of  that  resolution  he  could  not  subscribe  ;  but  as  Parliament  had  thought 


6S6  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

proper  to  pass  it,  and  as  ministers  wpre  bound  to  obey  the  orders  of  Parliament,  so  he  should 
make  that  re.solutiou  the  standard  of  his  future  conduct.     (Ibid.,  p.  ]1U7.) 

These  protpatation.s  of  Lord  Nortli  did  not  arrest  the  action  of  the  Commons. 
The  resolution  passed,  and  peace  followed. 

It  will  be  observed  that  these  proceedings  on  the  part  of  the  Commons 
trenched  on  ground  covered  by  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown,  and  affected,  to 
some  extent,  the  powers  of  declaring  ■War,  making  peace,  and  entering  into 
treaties.  Still  the  ministry  bowed  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  the  house, 
and  declared  that —  • 

It  was  scarcely  possible  that  a  minister  should  be  found  hardy,  daring,  infamous  enough 
to  advise  his  sovereign  to  ditfer  in  opinion  from  his  Parliament. 

This  grand  action  of  the  Commons  and  its  results  disclosed  the  sublinlest 
feature  of  the  British  constitution.  It  was  made  to  appear  how  thoroughly, 
under  that  constitution,  the  executive  power  was  dependent  on  the  legislative 
will  of  the  nation.  The  doctrine  that  "  the  King  can  do  no  wrong,"  while  it 
protected  his  person,  was  resolved  into  an  almost  perfect  subordination  of  the 
ministers,  through  whom  the  powers  of  the  Crown  are  exerted,  to  the  acts  and 
resolutions  of  the  Parliament,  until  at  last  the  I'oar  of  the  lion  of  England  is  no 
more  than  the  voice  of  the  Commons  of  the  realm.  So  completely  had  this 
principle  asserted  itself  in  the  British  constitution  that  the  veto  power  had 
passed  into  disuse  for  nearly  a  century,  and  it  has  not  been  exercised  since. 
The  last  instance  of  its  u?e  was  in  April,  1696,  when  William  III  refused  the 
royal  assent  to  a  "  bill  to  regulate  elections  of  members  to  serve  in  Parliament."  • 
(Hansard,  vol.  5,  p.  993.) 

The  men  who  formed  our  Constitution  in  1787  were  not  untaught  of  these 
facts  in  English  history ;  and  they  fashioned  our  government  on  the  plan  of 
the  subordination  of  the  executive  power  to  the  written  law  of  the  land.  They 
did  not  deny  the  veto  power  to  the  President ;  but  they  did  declare  that  it 
should  be  subject  to  a  legislative  limitation,  under  the  operation  of  which  it 
might,  in  any  given  case,  be  overruled  by  the  Congress,  and  when  this  happens, 
and  the  vetoed  bill  becomes  a  law,  the  President  must  yield  the  convictions  of 
his  own  judgment,  as  an  individual,  to  the  demands  of  the  higher  duty  of  the 
officer,  and  execute  the  law.  His  oath  binds  him  to  this,  and  he  cannot  pursue 
any  other  course  of  action  without  endangering  the  public  weal.  The  (Consti- 
tution regards  him  in  a  double  capacity — as  citizen  and  public  officer.  In  the 
first  it  leaves  him  to  the  same  accountability  to  the  law  in  its  ordinary  processes 
as  would  attach  to  and  apply  in  case  he  were  a  mere  civilian  or  the  humblest  citi- 
zen; while  in  the  latter  it  subjects  him  to  the  power  of  the  House  of  Representa-' 
tives  to  impeach,  and  that  of  the  Senate  to  remove  him  from  office,  if  he  be  guilty 
of  "treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  If  the  citizen 
disobeys  the  law,  and  be  convicted  thereof,  he  may  be  relieved  by  pardon  ;  but 
the  officer  who  brings  upon  himself  a  conviction  on  impeachment  cannot  receive 
the  executive  clemency.  For  while  it  is  provided  that  the  President  "shall 
have  power  to  grant  reprieves  and  pardi)n3  for  offences  against  the  United 
States,"  it  is  also  expressly  declared  that  this  power  shall  not  extend  to  "  cases 
of  impeachment."  (Article  2,  section  2  )  Tne  same  person,  if  he  be  a  civil 
officer,  may  be  uidicted  for  a  violation  of  law  and  impeached  for  the  same  act. 
If  convicted  in  both  cases  he  may  be  pardontnl  in  the  former,  but  in  thi^  latter 
he  is  beyond  the  reach  of  forgiveni'ss.  Tlie  relief  provided  for  the  disobedient 
citizen  is  denied  to  the  offending  officer. 

I  have  already  observed  that  the  Constitution 4)f  the  United  States  distributes 
the  powers  of  the  government  among  three  departments.  First  in  the  order  of 
constitutional  arrangement  is  the  legislative  dej)artment ;  and  this,  doubtless, 
because  the  law-making  power  is  the  supreme  power  of  the  land  through  which 
the  will  of  the  nation  is   expressed.     The  legislative  power,  in  other  words  the 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    P    ESIDENT.  687 

law-making  power,  is  "  vested  in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States."     The  acts 
of  Congress  constitute  the  municipal  law  of  the  reiDublic. 

Municipal  law  is  a  rule  of  action  proscribed  by  the  supreme  power  of  a  State,  command- 
ing what  is  right  and  prohibiting  what  is  wrong.     (1  Blackstone,  p.  44.) 

The  supreme  power  of  a  State  is  that  which  is  highest  in  authority,  and 
therefore  it  was  proper  that  the  Constitution  should  name  first  the  legislative 
department  in  the  distribution  of  powers,  as  through  it  alone  the  State  can 
speak.  Its  voice  is  the  law,  the  rule  of  action  to  be  respected  and  obeyed  by 
every  person  subject  to  its  direction  or  amenable  to  its  requirements. 

Next  in  the  order  of  its  distribution  of  powers  the  Constitution  names  the 
executive  department.  This  is  proper  and  logical ;  for  the  will — the  law — of 
tlie  nation  cannot  act  except  through  agents  or  instrumentalities  charged  with 
its  execution.  The  Congress  can  enact  a  law,  but  it  cannot  execute  it.  It  can 
express  the  will  of  the  nation,  but  some  other  agencies  are  required  to  give  it 
eflFect.  Tbe  Constitution  resolves  these  agencies  and  instrumentalities  into  an 
executive  department.  At  the  head  of  this  department,  charged  imperatively 
with  the  due  execution  of  its  great  powers,  appears  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  didy  enjoined  to  "take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed."  If 
the  law  which  he  is  to  execute  does  not  invest  him  with  discretionary  power,  he 
has  no  election — he  must  execute  the  will  of  the  nation  as  expressed  by  Con- 
gress. In  no  case  can  he  indulge  in  the  uncertainties  and  irresponsibilities  of 
an  official  discretion  unless  it  be  conceded  to  him  by  express  enactment.  In 
all  other  cases  he  must  follow  and  enforce  the  legislative  will.  "  The  office  of 
executing  a  law  excludes  the  right  to  judge  of  it;"  and  as  the  Constitution 
charges  the  President  with  the  execution  of  the  laws,  it  thereby  "  declares  what 
is  his  duty,  and  gives  him  no  power  beyond."  (Rawle  on  the  Constitution,  p. 
134.)  Undoubtedly  he  possesses  the  right  to  recommend  the  enactment  and  to 
advise  the  repeal  of  laws.  He  may  also,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  obstruct 
the  passage  of  laws  by  interposing  his  veto.  Beyond  these  means  of  changing, 
directing  or  obstructing  the  national  will  he  may  not  go.  When  the  Irtw-making 
power  has  resolved,  his  "  opposition  must  be  at  an  end.  That  resolution  is  a 
law,  and  resistance  to  it  punishable."     (Federalist,  No.  70  ) 

The  judgment  of  the  individual  intrusted,  for  the  time  being,  with  the  execu- 
tive power  of  the  republic  may  reject  as  utterly  erroneous  the  conc!u.--ions  arrived 
at  by  those  invested  with  the  legislative  power ;  but  the  officer  must  submit  and 
execute  the  law.  He  has  no  discretion  in  the  premises  except  such  as  the  par- 
ticular statute  confers  on  him  ;  and  even  this  he  must  exercise  in  obedience  to 
the  rules  which  the  act  provides.  A  high  officer  of  the  government  once  gave 
to  a  President  of  the  United  States  an  opinion  relative  to  this  doctrine  in  these 
words  : 

To  the  Chief  Executive  Magistrate  of  the  Union  is  confided  the  solemn  duty  of  seeing  the 
laws  faithfully  executed.  That  he  may  be  able  to  meet  this  duty  with  a  power  equal  to  its 
performance  he  nominates  his  own  subordinates  and  removes  them  at  his  pleasure. 

This  opinion  was  given  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  2,  1867, 
which  requires  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate  in  removals  from  office,  which 
while  denying  to  the  President  the  power  of  absolute  removal,  concedes  to  him 
the  powej  to  suspend  officers  and  to  supply  their  places  temporarily. 

For  the  same  reason  the  land  and  naval  forces  are  under  his  orders  as  their  ("ommander-in- 
chief ;  but  his  power  is  to  be  used  only  "in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  legislative  depart- 
ment. He  cannot  accomplish  a  legal  purpose  by  illegal  means,  or  break  the  laws  himself  to 
prevent  them  from  being  violated  by  others. 

The  acts  of  Congress  sometimes  give  the  President  a  broad  discretion  in  the  use  of  the  means 
by  which  they  are  to  be  e.xecuted,  and  sometimes  limit  his  power  so  that  he  can  exercise  it 
only  in  a  certain  prescribed  manner.  Where  the  law  directs  a  thing  to  be  done,  without  say- 
ing how,  that  implies  the  power  to  use  such  mean.s  as  may  be  necessary  and  proper  to  accom- 
plish the  end  of  tlie  legislature.  But  where  the  mode  of  performing  a  duty  is  pointed  out  by 
statute,  that  is  the  exclusive  mode,  and  no  other  can  be  followed.  The  United  States  have 
no  common  law  to  fall  back  upon  when  the  written  law  is  defective.     If,  therefore,  au  act  of 


688  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE   PRESIDENT. 

Congress  declares  that  a  certain  thiiior  shall  be  done  by  a  particular  oflBcer,  it  cannot  be  done 
by  a  different  officer.  The  af^eucy  which  the  law  furnishes  for  its  own  execution  must  be 
used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.     (Opinion  of  Attorney  General  Black,  November  '20,  1860.) 

This  is  a  very  clear  statement  of  the  doctrine  wliich  I  have  been  endeav- 
oring to  enforce,  and  on  which  the  particular  branch  of  this  case  now  com- 
manding our  attention  rests.  If  we  drift  away  from  it  we  unsettle  the  very 
foundations  of  the  government,  and  endanger  its  .stability  to  a  d(;gree  which 
may  well  alarm  the  most  hopeful  minds,  and  appal  the  most  courageous.  A 
departure  from  this  view  of  the  character  of  the  executive  power,  and  from 
the  nature  of  the  duty  and  obligation  resting  upon  the  officer  charged  there- 
with, would  surround  this  nation  with  perils  of  most  fearful  proportions.  Such 
a  departure  would  not  only  justify  fhe  respondent  in  his  refusal  to  obey  and 
execute  the  law,  but  also  ap{)rove  his  usurpation  of  the  judicial  |)ower  when  he 
resolved  that  he  would  not  observe  the  legislative  will,  because,  in  his  judgment, 
it  did  not  conform  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
touching  the  subjects  embraced  in  the  articles  of  impeachment  on  which  he  is 
now  being  tried  at  your  bar.  Concede  this  to  him,  and  when  and  where  may 
we  look  for  the  end  ?  To  what  result  shall  we  arrive  1  Will  it  not  naturally 
and  inevitably  lead  to  a  consolidation  of  the  several  powers  of  the  government, 
in  the  executive  department?  And  would  this  be  the  end?  Would  it  not  rather 
be  but  the  beginning  1  If  the  President  may  defy  and  usurp  the  powers  of 
the  legislative  and  judicial  departments  of  the  government,  as  his  caprices  or 
the  advice  of  his  cabinet  may  incline  him,  why  may  not  his  subordinates,  each 
for  himself,  and  touching  his  own  sphere  of  action,  determine  how  far  the  direc- 
tions of  his  superior  accord  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
reject  and  refuse  to  obey  all  that  come  short  of  the  standard  erected  by  his  judg- 
ment? Jt  was  remarked  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the 
case  of  Martin  vs.  Mott,  (12  Wheaton,  19,)  that — 

If  a  superior  officer  has  a  right  to  contest.the  orders  of  the  President,  upon  his  own  doubts 
as  to  the  exigency  (referred  to  by  the  statute)  having  arisen,  it  must  be  equally  the  right  of 
every  inferior  and  soldier ;  and  any  act  done  by  any  person  in  furtherance  of  such  orders 
would  sul)ject  him  to  responsibility  in  a  civil  suit,  in  which  his  defence  must  finally  rest 
upon  his  ability  to  establish  the  facts  by  competent  proofs.  Such  a  course  would  bo  sub- 
versive of  all  discipline,  and  expose  the  best  disposed  officers  to  the  chances  of  ruinous  liti- 
gation. *  #  .  #  *  The  power  itself  is  confined  to  the  executive  of  the  Union, 
to  him  who  is,  by  the  Constitution,  the  commander  of  the  militia,  when  called  into  the  actual 
service  of  the  United  States  ;  whot^e  dut}'  it  is  "  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  exe- 
cuted," and  whose  responsibility  for  an  honest  discharge  of  his  official  obligations  is  secured 
by  the  highest  sanction.  He  is  necessarily  constituted  the  judge  of  the  existence  of  the 
exigency  in  the  first  instance,  and  is  bound  to  call  forth  the  militia;  his  orders  for  this  pur- 
pose are  in  strict  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  law,  and  it  would  seein  to  follow,  as 
a  necessary  consequence,  that  every  act  done  by  a  subordinate  officer,  in  obedience  to  such 
orders,  is  ecjually  justifiable.  The  law  contemplates  that,  under  such  circumstances,  orders 
will  be  given  to  carry  the  power  into  effect;  and  it  cannot,  therefore,  be  a  correct  inference 
that  any  other  person  has  a  just  right  to  disobey  them. 

Apply  the  principles  here  enunciated  to  the  case  at  bar,  and  thoy  become  its 
perfect  supports.  If  the  President  has  a  right  to  contest  and  refuse  to  obey  the 
laws  gnacted  by  Congress,  "liis  subordinates  may  exercise  the  same  right  and 
refuse  to  obey  his  orders.  If  he  may  exercise  it  in  one  case,  they  may  assert  it 
in  any  other.  If  he  may  challenge  the  laws  of  Congress,  they  may  (j  nation  the 
orders  of  the  President.  It  is  his  duty  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  nation,  and  it 
is  their  duty  to  obey  his  orders.  If  he  may  be  allowed  to  defy  the  legislative 
■will,  they  may  be  allowed  to  disregard  the  executive  order.  This  beg(its  confu- 
sion ;  and  the  affairs  of  the  public  are  made  the  sport  of  the  contending  ffictions 
and  conflicting  agents.  No  such  power  belongs  to  either.  To  Congress  is  given 
the  power  to  enact  laws,  and  while  they  remain  on  the  statute-book  it  is  the  con- 
stitutional duty  of  the  President  to  see  to  their  faithful  execution.  This  duty 
rests  upon  all  of  his  subordinates.  Its  observance  by  all,  the  President  included, 
makes  the  executive  department,  though  it  be  acting  through  tAi  thousand 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  689 

agent?,  a  unit.  Unity  produces  harmony,  harmony  effects  directness  of  action, 
.and  this  secures  a  due  execution  of  the  laws.  But  if  the  President  may  disre- 
gard the  hiw  because  he  has  been  advised  by  his  cabinet  and  believes  that  the 
Congress  viohited  the  Constitution  in  its  enactment,  and  his  subordinates  may, 
following  his  example,  disobey  his  orders  and  directions,  the  object  and  end  of 
an  executive  unity  is  defeated,  anarchy  succeeds  order,  force,  irresponsible  and 
vicious,  supplants  law,  and  ruin  envelops  the  republic  and  its  institutions.  If 
the  views  which  I  have  imperfectly  presented  are  correct — and  such  I  believe 
them  to  be — the  testimony  to  which  we  object  must  be  excluded  from  your  con- 
sideration, and  thus  will  be  determined  one  of  the  most  important  questions 
encircled  by  this  case. 

If  I  have  been  able  to  arrest  your  attention,  and  to  centre  it  upon  the  question 
which  I  have  imperfectly  discussed,  the  time  occupied  by  me  will  not  be  without 
profit  to  the  nation.  I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  royal  fiction  which 
asserts  that  "the  king  can  do  no  wrong"  cannot  be  applied  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States  in  such  manner  as  to  shield  him  from  the  just  condemnation 
of  violated  law.  The  king's  crimes  may  be  expiated  by  the  vicarious  atone- 
'  ment  of  his  ministers ;  but  the  President  is  held  personally  amenable  to  the 
impeaching  power  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  Concede  to  the  President 
immunity  through  the  advice  of  his  cabinet  officers,  and  you  reverse  by  your 
decision  the  theory  of  our  Constitution.  Let  those  who  will,  assume  this  respon- 
sibility.    I  leave  it  to  the  decision  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators.  I  have  no  intention  of  attempting 
to  make  a  reply  to  the  elaborate  argument  which  has  now  been  addressed  to  you 
by  one  of  the  honorable  managers  touching  the  merits  of  this  case.  The  time 
for  that  has  not  come.  The  testimony  is  not  yet  before  you.  The  case  is  not 
in  a  condition  for  you  to  consider  and  pass  upon  those  merits,  whether  they 
consist  in  law  or  fact.  The  simple  question  now  before  the  Senate  is  whether 
a  certain  offer  of  proof  which  we  have  placed  before  you  shall  be  carried  out 
into  evidence.  Of  course  that  inquiry  involves  another.  That  other  inquiry 
is  whether  the  evidence  which  is  offered  is  pertinent  to  any  matter  in  issue  in 
this  case,  and  when  it  is  ascertained  that  the  evidence  is  pertinent  I  suppose  it 
is  to  be  received.  Its  credibility,  its  weight,  its  effect  finally  upon  the  merits  of 
the  case  or  upon  any  question  involved  in  the  case,  is  a  subject  which  cannot 
be  considered  and  decided  upon  preliminarily  to  the  reception  of  the  evidence. 
And,  therefore,  leaving  on  one  side  the  whole  of  this  elaborate  argument  which 
has  now  been  addressed  to  you,  I  propose  to  make  a  few  observations  to  show 
that  this  evidence  is  pertinent  to  the  matter  in  issue  in  this  case. 

The  honorable  manager  has  read  a  portion  of  the  answer  of  the  President,  and 
has  stated  that  the  House  of  Representatives  has  taken  no  issue  upon  that  part 
of  the  answer.  As  to  that,  and  as  to  the  effect  of  that  admission  by  the  honor- 
able manager,  I  shall  have  a  word  or  two  to  say  presently.  But  the  honorable 
manager  has  not  told  you  that  the  House  of  Representatives,  when  the  honor 
able  managers  brought  to  your  bar  these  articles,  did  not  intend  to  assert  and 
prove  the  allegations  in  them  which  are  matters  of  fact.  One  of  these  allega- 
tions, Mr.  Chief  Justice,  as  you  will  find  by  reference  to  the  first  article  and 
to  the  second  article  and  to  the  third  article,  is  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  in  removing  Mr.  Stanton  and  in  appointing  General  Thomas, 
intentionally  violated  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  that  he  did  these 
acts  with  the  intention  of  violating  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Instead 
of  saying,  "it  is  wholly  immaterial  what  intention  the  President  had  ;  it  is  wholly 
immaterial  whether  he  honestly  believed  that  this  act  of  Congress  was  uncon- 
stitutional; it  is  wholly  immaterial  whether  he  believed  that  he  was  acting  in 
accordance  with  his  oath  of  office,  to  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitu- 
tion when  he  did  this  act" — instead  of  averring  that,  they  a\er  that  he  acted 
with  an  intention  to  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
44  I  p 


690  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Now,  when  we  inti'odtice  evidence  here,  or  offer  to  introduce  evidence  bere, 
bearing  on  this  question  of  intent — evidence  that,  before  forming  any  opinion  - 
upon  this  subject,  be  resorted  to  proper  advice  to  enable  him  to  form  a  correct 
one,  and  that  when  be  did  form  and  fix  opinions  on  this  siabject  it  was  under 
the  influence  of  this  proper  advice,  and  that  consequently  when  be  did  this  act, 
whether  it  was  lawful  or  unlawful,  it  was  not  done  with  the  intention  to  violate 
the  Constitution — when  we  oft'er  evidence  of  that  character,  the  honorable  man- 
ager gets  up  bere  and  argues  an  hour  by  the  clock  that  it  is  wholly  immaterial 
what  his  intention  was,  what  bis  opinion  was,  what  advice  be  bad  received,  and 
in  conformity  with  which  be  acted  in  this  matter. 

The  honorable,  manager's  argument  may  be  a  sound  one ;  the  Senate  may 
ultimately  come  to  that  conclusion  after  they  have  heard  this  cause ;  that  is  of 
discussion  into  which  I  do  not  enter ;  but  before  the  Senate  can  come  to  the 
consideratiim  of  those  questions  they  must  pass  over  this  allegation;  they  must 
either  say,  as  the  honorable  manager  says,  that  it  is  wholly  immaterial  what 
opinion  the  President  formed  or  under  what  advice  or  circumstances  be  formed 
it,  or  else  it  must  be  admitted  by  senators  that  it  is  material,  and  the  evidence 
must  be  considered. 

Now,  bow  is  it  possible  at  this  stage  of  the  inquiry  to  determine  which  of 
these  courses  is  to  be  taken  by  the  honorable  Senate  ?  If  the  Senate  should 
finally  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  wholly  immaterial,  this  evidenge  will  do 
uo  barm.  On  the  other  band,  if  the  Senate  should  finally  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  is  material  what  the  intention  of  the  President  was  in  doing  these 
acts,  that  they  are  to  look  to  see  whether  there  was  or  not  a  wilful  violation  of  the 
Constitution,  then  they  will  have  excluded  the  evidence  upon  which  they  could 
have  determined  that  question,  if  it  should  thus  prove  to  be  material. 

I  respectfully  submit,  therefore,  that  whether  the  argument  of  the  honorable 
manager  is  sound  or  unsound,  whether  it  will  finally  prove  in  the  judgment  of 
the  Senate  that  this  evidence  is  immaterial  or  not,  this  is  not  the  time  to  exclude 
it  upon  the  ground  that  an  examination  of  the  merits  hereafter  and  a  decision 
upon  those  merits  will  show  that  it  is  immaterial.  When  that  is  shown  the  evi- 
dence can  be  laid  aside.  If  the  other  conclusion  should  be  arrived  at  by  any  one 
senator,  or  by  the  body  generally,  then  they  will  be  in  want  of  this  evidence 
which  we  now  offer. 

In  reference  to  this  question,  senators,  is  it  not  pertinent  evidence?  I  do  not 
intend  to  enter  into  the  constitutional  inquiry  which  was  started  yesterday  by 
an  honorable  manager  as  to  the  particular  character  of  this  cabinet  counsel. 
One  thing  i:?  certain  :  that  every  President  from  the  origin  of  the  government 
has  resorted  to  oral  consultations  with  the  members  of  bis  cabinet  and  oral  dis- 
cussions in  bis  presence  of  questions  of  public  importance  arising  in  the  course 
of  bis  official  duty.  Another  thing  is  equally  certain,  and  that  is,  that  although 
the  written  letter  remains,  and  therefore  it  would  appear  with  more  certainty 
what  the  advice  of  a  cabinet  councillor  was  if  it  were  put  in  writing,  yet  that 
every  practical  man  who  has  had  occasion  in  the  business  affairs  of  life,  and 
every  lawyer  and  every  legislator  knows  that  there  is  no  so  satisfactory  mode 
of  bringing  out  the  truth  as  an  oral  discussion,  face  to  face,  of  those  who  are 
engaged  in  the  subject;  that  it  is  the  most  suggestive,  the  most  searching,  the 
most  satisfactory  mode  of  arriving  at  a  conclusion  ;  and  that  solitary  written 
opinions,  composed  in  the  closet,  away  from  the  collision  between  mind  and 
mind  which  brings  out  new  thoughts,  new  conceptioiis,  more  accurate  views,  are 
not  the  best  mode  of  arriving  at  a  sab;  result.  And  under  the  influence  of 
these  practical  considerations  undoubtedly  it  is  that  this  habit,  beginning  with 
General  Washington — not  becoming  universal  by  any  mfiins  until  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son's time,  but  from  that  day  to  this  continuing  a  constant  practice — has  been 
formed.  President  Johnson  found  it  in  existence  when  he  went  into  office,  and 
he  continued  it. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  691 

I  therefore  say  that  when  the  questioH  of  his  intention  comes  to  be  considered 
by  the  Senate,  when  the  question  arises  in  their  minds  whether  the  President 
honestly  believed  that  this  was  an  unconstitutional  law,  when  the  particular 
emergency  arose,  when  if  he  carried  out  or  obeyed  that  law  he  must  quit  one 
of  the  powers  which  he  believed  were  conferred  upon  him  by  the  Constitution, 
and  not  be  able  to  carry  on  one  of  the  departments  of  the  government  in  the 
manner  the  public  interests  required — when  that  question  arises  for  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Senate,  then  they  ought  to  have  before  them  the  fact  that  he  acted 
by  the  advice  of  the  usual  and  proper  advisers ;  that  he  resorted  to  the  best 
means  within  his  reach  to  form  a  safe  opinion  upon  this  subject,  and  that  there- 
fore it  is  a  fair  conclusion  that  when  he  did  form  that  opinion  it  was  an  honest 
and  fixed  opinion,  which  he  felt  he  must  carry  out  in  practice  if  the  proper 
occasion  should  arise.  It  is  in  this  point  of  view,  and  this  point  of  view  only, 
that  we  offer  this  evidence. 

The  honorable  senator  from  Michigan  has  proposed  a  question  to  the  counsel 
for  the  President,  which  is  this  : 

Do  not  the  counsel  for  the  accused  consider  that  the  validity  of  the  tenure-of-office  bill  was 
purely  a  question  of  law  ? 

I  will  answer  that  part  of  the  question  first.  The  constitutional  validity  of 
any  bill  is,  of  course,  a  question  of  law  which  depends  upon  a  comparison  of 
the  provisions  of  the  bill  with  the  law  enacted  by  the  people  for  the  government 
of  their  agents.  It  depends  upon  whether  those  agents  have  transcended  the 
authority  which  the  people  gave  them  ;  and  that  comparison  of  the  Constitution 
with  the  law  is,  in  the  sense  that  was  intended  undoubtedly  by  the  honorable 
senator,  a  question  of  law. 

The  next  branch  of  the  question  is  "whether  that  question  is  to  be  deter- 
mined on  this  trial  by  the  Senate." 

That  is  a  question  I  cannot  answer.  That  is  a  question  that  can  be  deter- 
mined only  by  the  Senate  themselves.  If  the  Senate  should  find  that  Mr. 
Stanton's  case  was  not  within  this  law,  then  no  such  question  arises,  then  there 
is  no  question  in  this  particular  case  of  a  conflict  between  the  law  and  the  Con- 
stitution. If  the  Senate  should  find  that  these  articles  have  so  charged  the 
President  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  Senate  to  believe  that  there  was  some  act 
of  turpitude  on  his  part  connected  with  this  matter,  some  mala  fides,  some  bad 
intent,  and  that  he  did  honestly  believe,  as  he  states  in  his  answer,  that  this  was 
an  unconstitutional  law,  that  an  occasion  had  arisen  when  he  must  act  accord- 
ingly under  his  oath  of  office,  then  it  is  immaterial  whether  this  was  a  constitu- 
tional or  unconstitutional  law;  be  it  the  one  or  be  it  the  other,  be  it  true  or  false 
that  the  President  has  committed  a  legal  offence  by  an  infraction  of  the  law,  he 
'has  not  committed  the  impeachable  offence  with  which  he  is  charged  by  the 
House  of  Representatives.  And,  therefore,  we  must  advance  beyond  these  two 
questions  before  we  reach  the  third  branch  of  the  question  which  the  hon- 
orable senator  from  Michigan  propounds,  whether  the  question  of  the  constitu- 
tionality of  this  law  must  be  determined  on  this  trial  by  the  Senate.  In  the 
view  of  the  President's  counsel  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  Senate  to  determine 
that  question.     The  residue  of  the  inquiry  is: 

■Do  the  counsel  claim  that  the  opinion  of  the  cabinet  officers  touching  that  question — 

That  is,  the  constitutionality  of  the  law — 
is  competent  evidence  by  which  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  might  be  influenced? 

Certainly  not.  We  do  not  put  them  on  the  stand  as  experts  on  questions  of  con- 
stitutional law.  The  judges  will  determine  that  out  of  their  own  breasts.  We 
put  them  ou  the  stand  as  advisers  of  the  Pi-esident  to  state  what  advice,  in  point 
of  fact,  they  gave  him.  with  a  view  to  show  that  he  was  guilty  of  no  improper 
intent  to  violate  the  Constitution.  We  put  them  on  the  stand,  the  honorable 
senator  from  Michigan  will  allow  me  to  answer,  for  the  same  purpose  for  which 


692  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

he  doubtless,  in  his  extensive  practice,  has  often  put  lawyers  on  the  stand.  A 
man  is  proceeded  against  by  another  for  an  improper  arrest,  for  a  malicious  pros- 
ecution. It  is  necessary  to  prove  malice  and  want  of  probable  cause.  When 
the  want  of  probable  cause  is  proved,  the  malice  is  inferable  from  it ;  but  then 
it  is  perfectly  well  settled  that  if  the  defendant  can  show  that  he  fairly  laid 
his  case  before  counsel,  and  that  counsel  informed  him  that  that  was  a  probable 
case,  he  must  be  acquitted  ;  the  malice  is  gone.  That  is  the  purpose  for  which 
we  propose  to  put  these  gentlemen  on  the  stand,  to  prove  that  they  acted  as 
advisers,  that  the  advice  was  given,  that  it  was  acted  under ;  and  that  purges 
the  malice,  the  improper  intent. 

To  respond  to  the  question  of  the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland,  he  will 
allow  me  to  say  that  it  is  a  question  which  the  managers  can  answer  much  better 
than  the  President's  counsel. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Will  you  read  it,  please  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  is  : 

Do  the  counsel  for  the  President  understand  that  the  manap:er3  deny  the  statement  made 
by  the  President  in  his  message  of  December  12,  1867,  to  the  Senate,  as  given  in  evidence  by 
the  managers,  at"  page  45  of  the  official  report  of  the  trial,  that  the  members  of  the  cabinet 
gave  him — 

That  is,  the  President — 

the  opinion  there  stated  as  to  the  tenure-of-office  act ,  and  is  the  evidence  offered  to  corrobo 
rate  that  statement,  or  for  what  other  object  is  it  oifered  ? 

We  now  understand,  from  what  the  honorable  manager  has  said  this  morning, 
that  the  House  of  Representatives  has  taken  no  issue  on  that  part  of  our  answer ; 
that  the  honorable  managers  do  not  understand  that  they  have  traversed  or 
denied  that  part  of  our  answer.  We  did  understand  before  this  question  was 
proposed  to  us  that  the  lionorable  managers  had  themselves  put  in  evidence  the 
message  of  the  President  of  the  12th  of  December,  1867,  to  the  Senate,  in  which 
he  states  that  he  was  advised  by  the  members  of  the  cabinet  unanimously, 
including  Mr.  Stanton,  that  this  law  would  be  unconstitutional  if  enacted.  They 
have  put  that  in  evidence  themselves. 

Nevertheless,  senators,  this  is  an  affair,  as  you  perceive,  of  the  utmost  gravity 
in  any  possible  aspect  of  it ;  and  we  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  avoid  or  abstain 
from  the  offering  of  the  members  of  the  President's  cabinet  that  they  might 
state  to  you,  under  the  sanction  of  their  oaths,  what  advice  was  given.  I  sup- 
pose all  that  the  managers  would  be  prepared  to  admit  might  be — certainly  they 
have  made  no  broader  admission — that  the  President  said  these  things  in  a  mes- 
sage to  the  Senate ;  but  from  the  experience  we  have  had  thus  far  in  this  trial 
we  thought  it  not  impossible  that  the  managers,  or  some  one  of  them  speaking  in 
behalf  of  himself  and  the  others,  might  say  that  the  President  had  told  a  falsehood, 
and  we  wish  therefore  to  place  ourselves  right  before  the  Senate  on  this  subject. 
We  desire  to  examine  these  gentlemen  to  show  what  passed  on  this  subject,  and 
we  wish  to  do  it  for  the  purposes  I  have  stated. 

Mr.  Williams.  Before  the  learned  gentleman  concludes  I  desire  to  submit  a 
question  to  him. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  tlic  question  proposed  by  the 
senator  from  Oregon. 

The  chief  clerk  road  as  follows : 

Is  tlie  advice  given  to  the  President  by  his  cabinet,  with  a  view  of  preparing  a  veto  mes- 
sage, pertinent  to  prove  the  right  of  the  President  to  disregard  the  law  alter  it  was  passed 
over  his  veto  ? 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  consider  it  to  be  strictly  pertinent.  It  is  not  of  itself  sufficient; 
it  is  not  enough  that  the  President  received  such  advice ;  he  must  show  that  an 
occasion  arose  for  him  to  act  upon  it,  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Senate,  was 
such  an  occasion  that  you  could  not  impute  to  him  wrong  intention  in  acting. 
But  the  first  step  ia  to  show  that  he  honestly  believed  that  this  was  an  uncon- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE   PRESIDENT.  693 

stitutional  law.  Whether  he  should  treat  it  as  such  in  a  particular  instance  is 
a  matter  depending  upon  his  own  personal  responsibility  without  advice.  That 
ia  the  answer  which  I  suppose  is  consistent  with  the  views  we  have  of  this  case. 

And  I  wish,  in  closing,  merely  to  say,  that  the  senators  will  perceive  how 
entirely  aside  this  view  which  I  have  now  presented  to  the  Senate  is  from  any 
claim  on  behalf  of  the  President  that  he  may  disregard  a  law  simply  because 
he  believes  it  to  be  unconstitutional.  Pie  makes  no  such  claim.  He  must  make 
a  case  beyond  that — a  case  such  as  is  stated  in  his  answer;  but  in  order  to  make 
a  case  beyond  that  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  begin  by  satisfying  the  Senate  that 
he  honestly  believed  the  law  to  be  unconstitutional ;  and  it  is  with  a  view  to 
that  that  we  now  offer  this  evidence. 

The  Chikf  Justicb.  Senators,  the  question  now  before  the  Senate,  as  the 
Chief  Justice  conceives,  respects  not  the  weight,  but  the  admissibility  of  the  evi- 
dence offered.  To  determine  that  question,  it  is  necessary  to  see  what  is  charged 
in  the  articles  of  impeachment.  The  first  article  charges  that  on  the  21st  day 
of  February,  1868,  the  President  issued  an  order  for  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stan- 
ton from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  that  this  order  was  made  unlawfully, 
and  that  it  was  made  with  intent  to  violate  the  tenure-of-office  act,  and  in  viola- 
tion of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  same  charge  in  substance 
is  repeated  in  the  articles  which  relate  to  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Thomas, 
which  was  necessarily  connected  with  the  transaction.  The  intent,  then,  is  the 
subject  to  which  much  of  the  evidence  on  both  sides  has  been  directed  ;  and  the 
Chief  Justice  conceives  that  this  testimony  is  admissible  for  the  purpose  of  show- 
ilig  the  intent  with  which  the  President  has  acted  in  this  transaction.  He  will 
submit  the  question  to  the  Senate  if  any  senator  desires  it. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  CHtKF  Ju.«TiCE.  The  senator  from  Michigan  desires  that  the  question 
be  submitted  to  the  Senate,  and  calls  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  proposed 
evidence  is  admissible  will,  as  your  names  are  called,  answer  yea ;  those  of 
the  contrary  opinion,  nay. 

Mr.  Drake.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  offer  of  counsel. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  offer, 

The  chief  clerk  read  the  ofi'er. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  20,  nays  29;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Me.ssrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessenden,  Fowler, 
Grimes,  Heudev-sou,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Sauls- 
bury,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Viekers,  and  Willey — 20. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling^,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Freliughuysen.  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Sprague, 
Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 29. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Sumner,  and  Wade — 5. 

So  the  Senate  decided  the  evidence  to  be  inadmissible. 

Gideon  Welles — examination  continued. 
By  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Question    At  the  cabinet  meetings  held  at  the  period  from  the  presentation  o 
the  bill  to  the  President  until  his  message  sending  in  his  objections  was  comj 
pleted,  was  the  question  whether  Mr.  Stanton  was  within  the  operation  of  the 
civil-tenure  act  the  subject  of  consideration  and  determination  ? 

Mr.  Man"ager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.     We  object. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  propose  their  question  in  writing. 

Mr.  Ev^KTS.  I  will  make  an  offer,  witl|  the  permission  of  the  Chief  Justice. 


694  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  oflfer  was  reduced  to  writing,  and  read  by  the  chief  clerk,  as  follows : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  at  the  meetingrs  of  the  cabinet  at  which  Mr.  Stanton  vvas  present, 
held  while  the  temiri_>-of-office  bill  was  before  the  President  for  approval,  the  advice  of  the 
cabinet  in  rej^ard  to  the  same  was  asked  by  the  President  and  {riven  by  the  cabinet ;  and 
therenpon  the  qjiestion  whether  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  other  Secretaries  who  had  received  their 
appointment  from  Mr.  Lincoln  Avere  witliin  the  restriction.s  upon  the  President's  power  of 
removal  from  otiice  cnmted  by  said  act  was  considered,  and  the  opinion  expressed  that  the 
Secretaries  appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  were  not  within  such  restrictions. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  object,  Mr.  Pre.sident  and  senators,  that  this  is 
only  asking  the  advice  of  the  cabinet  as  to  the  construction  of  a  law.  The  last 
question  was  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  a  law,  and  advice  as  to  law  we  sup- 
pose to  be  wholly  included  within  the  last  ruling  of  the  Senate.  We  do  not 
propose  to  argue  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  do  not  so  regird  the  matter  ;  and  even  if  the  ruling  should 
be  so  rightly  construed,  still,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  it  would  be  proper 
for  us  to  make  this  itff'er  accepting  your  ruling,  if  it  were  not  a  matter  for  debate. 
We  understand  that  the  disposition  of  the  question  of  evidence  already  made 
may  turn  upon  any  one  of  several  considerations  quite  outside  of  the  present 
inquiry  ;  as,  for  instance,  if  it  should  be  held  to  have  turned  upon  considerations 
suggested  by  some  of  the  questions  put  by  one  or  more  of  the  senators  of  this 
body,  as  to  the  importance  or  pertinence  of  evidence  as  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  constitutionality  of  a  law,  as  tending  to  justify  or  explain  or  aft'ect 
with  intent  the  act  alleged  of  a  violation  of  the  law. 

The  present  evidence  sought  to  be  introduced  is  quite  of  another  complexion, 
and  has  this  purpose  and  object  in  reference  to  several  views  that  may  be  applied 
to  the  President's  conduct ;  in  the  first  place,  as  respects  the  law  itself,  tliat  a 
new  law  confessedly  reversing,  or,  as  was  frequently  expressed  in  the  debates  of 
the  houses  which  passed  the  law,  "revolutionizing  the  action  of  the  government" 
in  respect  to  this  exercise  of  executive  power,  and  in  respect  to  this  particular 
point  also  of  whether  it  had  any  efficacy  or  was  intended  to  have  any  applica- 
tion which  should  fasten  upon  the  President  Secretaries  whom  he  never  had 
selected  or  appointed,  which  formed  the  subject  of  so  much  opinion  in  the  Sen- 
ate, and  also  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  was  made  a  subject  of  inquiry  and 
opinion  by  the  President  himself,  and  that  his  action  concerning  which  he  is  now 
broughtin  question  here  in  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton, was  based  upon  his  opinion 
after  proper  and  diligent  eiforts  to  get  at  a  correct  opinion,  whether  Mr.  Stanton 
was  within  the  law ;  and,  therefore,  that  his  conduct  and  action  was  not  in  the 
intent  of  violating  the  law  which,  it  is  said  here,  cannot  be  qualified  even  under 
these  charges  by  showing  that  he  did  not  do  it  with  intention  of  violating  the 
Constitution. 

The  point  now  is  that  he  did  not  do  it  with  intent  of  violating  the  law,  but 
that  he  did  it  with  the  intent  of  exercising  a  well-known,  perfectly  established 
constitutional  power,  deemed  by  him,  on  the  advice  of  these  his  cabinet,  not  to 
be  embraced  within  the  law  ;  and  if  the  question  of  the  intent  of  his  violation  of 
duty,  of  the  purpose  and  the  motive  and  the  object  and  the  result,  the  injury  to 
the  public  service  or  the  order  of  the  state  is  to  form  a  part  of  the  inquiry,  then 
we  bring  him  by  one  mode  of  inquiry  within  obedience  t<)  the  Constitution  as  he 
was  advised,  and  by  this  present  object  of  inquiry  within  obedience  to  the  law  as 
he  was  advised. 

So,  too,  it  has  a  bearing  from  the  presence  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  his  assent  to 
these  opinions,  on  the  attitude  in  which  the  President  stood  in  regard  to  his 
right  to  expect  from  Mr.  Stanton  an  acquiescence  in  th'e  exercise  of  the  power 
of  removal,  which  stood  upon  the  Constitution  in  Mr.  Stanton's  opinion,  and 
which  was  not  affected  by  the  law  in  Mr.  Stanton's  opinion  ;  and  thus  to  raise 
precisely  and  detinitely  in  this  asptict  the  qualifications  of  the  President's  course 
and  conduct  in  this  behalf  as  intending  an  aj)plieaiion  of  force,  or  contemplating 
the  possibility  of  the  need  of  an  application  of  lorce. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  695 

Mr.  Manager  B(iti,ek.  Without  intending  to  debate  this  proposition,  I  desire 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  fact  that  the  que.'-tiou  seeks  to  inquire 
whether  the  cabinet,  including  Mr.  Stanton,  did  not  advise  the  President  that 
the  bill  as  presented  for  his  consideration  did  not  apply  to  Mr.  Stanton  and  those 
in  like  situation  with  him.  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  Exhibit 
A,  on  the  3Sth  page,  which  is  the  veto  message,  wherein  the  President  vetoes 
the  bill  expressly  upon  the;  ground  that  it  does  include  all  his  cabinet,  so  that  if 
they  advised  him  to  the  contrary,  the  advice  does  not  seem  to  have  had  opera- 
tion on  Ills  mind. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Read  the  words. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will. 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States : 

I  have  carefully  examined  tlie  bill  to  regulate  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices.  The 
material  portion  of  the  bill  is  contained  in  the  first  section,  and  is  of  the  effect  following, 
namely : 

That  every  person  holding  any  civil  office  to  which  he  has  been  appointed  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  every  person  who  shall  hereafter  be  appointed  to 
any  such  office,  and  shall  become  duly  qualified  to  act  therein,  is,  and  shall  be,  entitled  to 
hold  such  office  until  a  successor  shall  have  been  appointed  b^'  the  President,  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  duly  qualified ;  and  that  the  Secretaries  of  State,  of  the 
Treasury,  of  War,  of  the  Navy,  ;uid  of  the  Interior,  the  Postmaster  General,  and  the  Attor- 
ney General,  shall  hold  their  offices  respectively  for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President  by 
whom  they  may  have  been  appointed,  and  for  one  mouth  thereafter,  subject  to  removal  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

These  provisions  are  qualified  by  a  reservation  in  the  fourth  section,  "  that  nothing  con- 
tained in  the  bill  shall  be  construed  to  extend  the  term  of  any  office  the  duration  of  which  is 
liniiied  by  law."  In  eft'ect  the  bill  provides  that  the  President  shall  not  remove  from  their 
places  any  of  the  civil  officers  whose  terms  of  service  are  not  limited  by  law  without  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  The  bill,  in  this  respect,  conflicts, 
in  my  judgment,  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  question,  Congress  is 
well  aware,  is  by  no  means  a  new  one." 

And  then  he  goes  on  to  argue  upon  the  debate  of  1789,  which  wholly  applied 
to  cabinet  officers,  and  you  will  find  that  that  is  the  gist  of  the  President's 
whole  argument.  Then,  on  the  41st  page,  after  having  exhausted  the  argu- 
ment as  to  the  cabinet  officers,  he  says  : 

It  applies  equally  to  every  other  officer  of  the  government  appointed  by  the  President,  whose 
term  of  duration  is  not  specially  declared.  It  is  supported  by  the  weighty  reason  that  the 
subordinate  officers  in  the  executive  department  ought  to  hold  at  the  pleasure  of  the  head  of 
the  department,  because  he  is  invested  generally  with  the  executive  authority,  and  the  par- 
ticipation in  that  authority  by  the  Senate  was  an  exception  to  a  general  principle,  and  ought 
to  be  taken  strictly.  The  President  is  the  great  responsible  oflicer  for  the  execution  of  the 
laws. 

But  I  must  ask  attention  to  the  point  that  there  is  some  additional  reason  to 
have  this  evidence  go  in  because  Mr.  Stanton  gave  such  construction  to  the  law. 
It  was  offered  in  the  last  proposition  voted  upon  to  show  that  Mr.  Stanton  gave 
advice  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  law;  so  that  in  this  respect  the  two 
propositions  stand  precisely  alike  in  principle,  and  cannot  be  distinguished. 

It  is  said  this  evidence  should  be  admitted  to  show  that  the  President,  when 
he  removed  Stanton  and  put  in  Thomas,  supposed  that  Stanton  did  not  believe 
himself  to  be  within  the  law  and  protected  in  office  by  its  enactments.  Mr. 
Stanton  had  just  been  reinstated  under  the  law  ;  had  refused  to  resign  because 
he  could  not  be  touched  under  the  law  ;  had  put  the  President's  power  to  defi- 
ance, as  the  President  says  in  his  message,  because  he  believed  that  th«  law  d'd 
not  allow  him  to  be  touched.  Now,  does  this  evidence  tend  to  show  that  the 
President  thought  Mr.  Stanton  would  agree  that  he  was  not  kept  in  office  by 
the  law,  and  go  out  when  he  put  in  Mr.  Thomas  ?  Does  any  sane  man  believe 
that  the  President  thought  that  Mr.  Stanton  would  yield  on  the  ground  that  he 
was  not  covered  by  the  law  when  he  was  removed  and  Mr.  Thomas  appointed  ? 
The  President  did  not  put  his  belief  on  any  such  ground  ;  he  put  it  on  the  ground 
that  Stanton  was  a  coward,  and  would  not  dare  resist ;  not  that  he  did  not  believe 


696  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

himself  within  the  law  and  protected  by  it,  but  that  his  nerve  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient to  meet  General  Thomas,  lliat  was  the  President's  proposition  to  General 
Sherman  ;  it  was  a  reliance  on  the  nerves  of  the  man,  not  upon  his  construction 
of  the  law.  Therefore,  I  must  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  tliese  offers 
are  wholly  illusory  and  deceptive.  They  do  not  show  the  thing  contended  for; 
they  canuot  show  it ;  they  have  no  tendency  to  show  it,  and  whether  tJiey  have 
or  have  not,  the  Senate,  by  solemn  decision,  have  said  that  the  advice  of  cabinet 
otiicers  is  not  the  legal  vehicle  of  proof  by  which  the  fact  is  to  be  shown  to  the 
Senate,  even  if  it  were  competent  to  be  proved  in  any  manner. 

Mr.  EvAKTS  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  the  reference  to  the  a'gument 
of  the  President's  message,  which  is  contained  on  page  38  and  the  following 
pages  of  the  record,  seems  hardly  to  require  any  attention.  The  President  is 
there  arguing  against  the  bill  as  a  matter  of  legislation,  and  rightly  regards  it 
in  its  general  application  to  the  officers  of  the  government,  including  the  prin- 
cipal officers  of  the  departments.  The  minor  consideration  of  whether  or  not 
it  by  its  own  terms  reached  the  particular  persons  who  held  their  commissions 
from  President  Lincoln  could  not  by  any  possibility  have  been  the  subject  of 
discussion  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  sending  in  his  objections  to 
the  bill  on  constitutional  grounds.  It  was  not  a  constitutional  question  whether 
the  bill  included  the  officers  who  had  received  their  commissions  from  President 
Lincoln,  or  did  not  exclude  them. 

The  learned  manager  seems  equally  unfortunate  inbis  reference  to  the  con- 
duct of  Mr.  Stanton  upon  the  preliminary  proceeding  of  his  suspension  under 
the  civil-tenure  act,  for  no  construction  can  be  put  upon  Mr.  Stanton's  conduct 
there  except  that  he  did  not  think  he  was  under  the  act,  I  suppose,  because 
he  said  he  did  not' yield  to  the  act  which  authorized  suspension,  but  yielded  to 
force.     So  much  for  that. 

Now,  I  come  to  the  principal  inquiry;  and  that  is  whether  or  not  it  bears 
either  upon  the  President's  conduct  in  attempting  a  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton 
because  he  was  not  under  the  bill,  or  whether  it  bears  upon  the  rightful  expec- 
tation and  calculation  of  the  President  that  the  attempt  would  be  recognized  as 
suitable  by  Mr.  Stanton  because  he,  Mr.  Stanton,  did  not  believe  he  was  within 
the  bill. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  President  had  a  perfect  right  to  suppose  that  Mr. 
Stanton  would  not  attempt  to  oppose  him,  the  President,  in  the  exercise  of  an 
accustomed  authority  of  the  Chief  Executive,  since  he,  Mr.  Stanton,  believed  it 
to  be  unlawful ;  and  if  the  Executive  had  been  advised  by  Mr.  Stanton  on  this 
very  point  that  he,  Mr.  Stanton,  was  not  protected  by  the  restrictions  of  the 
civil  tenure-of-office  bill,  then  the  President  had  a  right  to  suppose  that  when 
the  executive  authority  given  by  the  Constitution,  as  it  was  understood  by  Mr. 
Stanton,  was  not  impeded  by  the  operation  of  the  special  act  of  Congress,  Mr. 
Stanton  of  course  would  yield  to  this  unimpeded  constitutional  power. 

The  Chief  Justice-^.  Senators,  the  Chief  Justice  is  of  opinion  that  this  testi- 
mony is  proper  to  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court 
of  impeachment;  biit  he  is  unable  to  determine  what  extent  the  Senate  is  dis- 
posed to  give  to  its  previous  ruling,  or  how  far  they  consider  that  ruling  appli- 
cable to  the  present  (juestion.  He  will  therefore  direct  the  Secretary  to  read  the 
offer  to  prove,  and  will  then  submit  the  question  directly  lo  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Drake.  On  that  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  chief  clerk  read  the  offer,  as  follows : 

We  offer  to  prove  tliat  at  tlie  mcetiiipfs  of  the  ciibinct  at  which  Mr.  Stanton  was  present, 
held  wliile  the  tenure-of-civil-office  bill  was  betuie  the  President  for  npiuoval,  the  adviee  ot" 
the  ciibiuet  in  rejjard  to  the  same  was  asked  by  the  President  and  given  by  tlie  cabinet,  and 
tlierenjjon  the  question  whether  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  other  Secretaries  who  had  received  their 
a[)pointnient  from  Mr.  Lincoln  were  within  the  restrictions  upon  the  Presid>'nt's  jiower  of 
removal  from  office  created  by  said  act  was  considered,  and  the  opinion  expressed  that  the 
Secretaries  appointed  by  Mr.  Liucolu  were  not  within  such  restrictions. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  697 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  this  question  the  senator  from  Missouri  asks  for  the 
yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  being  taken  resulted — yeas  22,  nays 
26  ;*  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bajanl,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessenden,  Fowler, 
Grimes,  Heudorson,  Hendricks.  Johnson,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Sauls- 
bury,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Trunihull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — 22. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole.  Conuoss,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Drake, 
Edmunds,  Ferry,  Frelincrhuyseu,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Mor<,^an,  Morrill  of  Slaine,  Mor- 
rill of  Vermont,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tij^ton, 
Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 2(). 

Not  voting— Slessrs.  Conkling,  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Sunnier,  and  Wade — 6. 

So  the  evidence  proposed  to  be  offered  was  decided  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  EVAKTS,  (to  the  witness.)  Mr.  Welles,  at  any  of  the  cabinet  meetings 
held  between  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  civil-tenure  act  and  the  removal 
of  Mr.  Stanton,  did  the  subject  of  the  public  service  as  affected  by  the  operation 
of  that  act  come  up  for  the  consideration  of  the  cabiuet  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Biitlkr.  1  object. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  This  is  merely  introductory. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  "Yes"  or  "No?" 

Mr.  Evarts.  Yes. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  do  not  object  to  that. 

The  Witness.  I  answer  yes. 
By  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  Was  it  considered  repeatedly? 

A    It  was  on  two  occasions,  if  not  more. 

Q.  During  those  considerations  and  discussions  was  the  question  of  the 
importance  of  having  some  determination  judicial  in  its  character  of  the  con- 
stitutionality of  this  law  considered  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stay  a  moment;  we  object. 

Mr.  Evarts.  It  only  calls  for  "yes"  or  "  no  " 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  it  means  only  to  get  in  "  yes  "  or  "  no,"  whether 
it  was  considered,  it  is  not  very  important. 

Mr.  Evarts.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  it  is  not  to  get  in  that  there  was  any  particular 
consideration  on  a  given  point.  In  other  words,  to  make  myself  plain,  by 
asking  a  series  of  well-contrived  questions,  one  might  get  in  pretty  much  what 
was  done  in  the  cabinet  by  "yes"  or  "  no "  answers.  We  object  to  it  as 
immaterial ;  and-  now  we,  perhaps,  might  have  it  settled  at  once,  as  well  as  ever. 
If  this  line  of  testimony  is  immaterial,  then  it  is  immaterial  whether  the  matter 
was  considered  in  the  cabinet.  If  the  determination  of  the  Senate  is  that  what 
■was  done  in ,  the  cabinet  should  not  come  in  here,  then  whether  it  was  done  is 
wholly  immaterial,  and  is  as  objectionable  as  what  was  done. 

Mr.  EvAR'i'S.  Yes  ;  but  the  honorable  manager  will  be  so  good  as  to  remem- 
ber that  the  rulings  of  the  Senate  have  expressly  determined  that  all  that  pro- 
perly bears  upon  the  question  of  the  intent  of  the  President  in  making  the 
removal  and  appointing  the  ad  interim  holder  of  the  office  with  a  view  of  raising 
the  judicial  question  is  admissible,  and  has  been  admitted. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  never  have  heard  that  ruling.  It  may  have 
escaped  us,  perhaps. 

Mr.  Evarts.  By  examining  the  record  you  will  find  it. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  have  examined  it  with  great  care,  but  we  shall 
not  find  that,  we  think.     Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  read  that  ruling? 

Mr.  Evarts.  It  is  in  the  memory  of  the  court, 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  ruling  is  on  the  record. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  the  question  be  objected  to  it  will  be  reduced  to 
writing. 


698  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDETT. 

The  offer  of  the  counsel  for  the  re;?ponikiit  was  reduced  to  writing  and  handed 
to  the  managers. 

Mr.  ^Manager  Butlek.  By  "  the  removal  "  do  I  i;nderPtaud  down  to  the  21st 
of  February,  1S6S  ? 

Mr.  EvAR'is.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Bltlkk.  ^May  I  insert  these  words  :  "  2l8t  of  February,  1868?' 

Mr.  EvART.-!.  You  may  alter  the  word  "removal"  to  "order  of  the  2 1st  of 
February,  1868,  fur  the  removal." 

The  Chief.  .Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  off^-r  made  by  the  counsel 
for  the  President. 

The  offer  wad  handed  to  the  desk  and  read,  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  at  the  cabinet  meetings  between  the  passage  of  the  tennre-of-civil- 
office  bill  and  the  order  of  the  21st  of  February,  I6ij"i,  for  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  upnii 
occasions  when  the  condition  of  the  public  service  as  affected  by  the  operation  of  that  bill 
came  up  for  the  consideration  and  advice  of  the  cabinet,  it  was  considered  by  the  President 
and  cabinet  that  a  proper  regard  to  the  public  service  made  it  desirable  that  upon  some 
proper  case  a  judicial  determination  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  should  be  obtained. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  we,  of  the  managers, 
object,  and  we  should  like  to  have  this  question  determined  in  the  minds  of  t'le 
senators  upon  this  principle.  We  understand  here  that  the  determination  of  the 
Senate  is,  that  cabinet  discussions,  of  whatever  nature,  shall  not  be  put  in  as  a 
shield  to  the  President.  That  I  understand,  for  one,  to  be  the  broad  principle 
upon  which  this  class  of  questions  stand  and  upon  which  the  Senate  has  voted  ; 
and,  therefore,  these  attempts  to  get  around  it,  to  get  in  by  detail  and  at  retail — 
if  I  may  use  that  expression — evidence  which  in  its  wholesale  character  cauuot 
be  admitted,  are  simply  tiring  out  and  wearing  out  the  patience  of  the  Senate. 
I  should  like  to  have  it  settled,  once  for  all,  if  it  can  be,  whether  the  cabinet 
consultations  upon  any  subject  are  to  be  a  shield.  Upon  this  particular  offer, 
however,  I  will  leave  the  matter  with  the  Senate  after  a  single  suggestion. 

It  is  offered  to  show  that  the  cabinet  consulted  upon  the  desirability  of  get- 
ting up  a  case  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  law.  It  is  eitlier  material  or 
immaterial.  It  might  possibly  be  material  in  one  view  if  they  mean  to  say  that 
they  consulted  upon  getting  up  this  case  in  the  mode  and  manner  that  it  is 
brought  here,  and  only  in  that  event  could  it  be  material.  Does  the  question 
mean  to  ask  if  they  consulted  and  agreed  together  to  bring  up  this  case  in  the 
form  in  which  it  has  been  done  ?  If  they  agreed  upon  any  other  proceeding  it 
is  wholly  immaterial ;  but  if  they  agreed  upon  this  case,  then  we  are  in  th'a 
condition  of  things,  that  they  propose  to  justify  the  President's  act  by  the 
advice  of  his  subordinates,  and  substitute  their  opinion  upon  the  legality  of  his 
action  in  this  case  for  yours. 

Senators,  you  passed  this  tenure-of-office  act.  That  might  have  been  done 
by  inadvertence.  The  President  then  presented  it  to  you  for  your  revision, 
and  you  passed  it  again  notwithstanding  his  constitutional  argutuent  upon  it. 
The  President  then  removed  Mr.  Stanton,  and  presented  its  unconstitutionality 
again,  and  presented  also  the  question  whether  Mr.  Stanton  was  within  it,  and 
you,  after  solemn  deliberation  and  argument,  again  decided  that  Mr.  Stanton 
was  within  its  provisions  so  as  to  be  protected  by  it,  and  that  the  law  was  eon- 
Btitutional.  Then  he  removed  Mr.  Stanton  on  the  21st  of  February,  and  pre- 
sented the  same  question  to  you  again;  and  again,  after  solemn  argument,  you 
decided  that  Mr.  Stanton  was  within  its  provisions  and  that  the  law  was  consti- 
tutional. Now  they  offer  to  show  the  discussions  of  the  cabinet  upon  its  con- 
stitutionality to  overrule  the  quadruple  opinion  solemnly  expressed  by  the 
Senate  upon  these  very  questions — four  times  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the 
law,  and  twice  upon  its  constitutionality  and  upon  the  fact  that  Mr.  Stanton 
was  within  it.  Is  that  testimony  to  be  put  in  here?  The  proposition  whether 
it  was  desirable  to  have  this  constitutional  question  raised  is  the  one  presented. 
If  it  was  any  other  constitutional  question  in  any  other  case,  then  it  is  wholly 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  699 

immaterial.  If  it  is  this  case,  then  you  are  trying  that  question,  and  they  pro- 
pose to  substitute  the  judgment  of  the  cabinet  for  the  judgment  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  must,  I  think,  be  allowed  to  say  that  the  patience  of  the 
Senate,  which  is  so  frequently  referred  to  by  the  learned  managers  as  being 
taxed,  seems  to  be,  in  their  judgment,  a  sort  of  unilateral  p^itience,  and  not 
open  to  impiessious  upon  opposite  sides.  Now,  senators,  the  proposition  can 
be  very  briefly  submitted  to  you. 

By  decisive  determinations  upon  certain  questions  of  evidence  arising  in  tbis 
cause,  you  have  decided  that,  at  least,  what  in  point  of  time  is  s©  near  to  this 
action  of  the  President  as  may  fairly  import  to  show  that  in  his  action  he  was 
governed  by  a  desire  to  raise  a  question  for  judicial  determination,  shall  be 
admitted.  About  that  there  can  be  no  question  that  the  record  will  confirm  my 
statement.  Now,  my  present  inquiry  is  to  show  that  within  this  pciriod,  thus 
extensively  and  comprehensively  named  for  the  present,  in  his  official  duty  and 
in  his  consultations  concerning  his  official  duty  with  the  heads  of  departments, 
it  became  apparent  that  the  operation  of  this  law  raised  embarrassments  in  the 
public  service,  and  rendered  it  important  as  a  practical  matter  that  there  should 
be  a  determination  concerning  the  constitutionality  of  the  law,  and  that  it  was 
desirable  that  upon  a  proper  case  such  a  determination  should  be  had.  I  submit 
the  matter  to  the  Senate  with  these  observations. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  offer  to  prove. 

The  chief  clerk  read  the  offer. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Oomness  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered. 

Mr.  Henderson.  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  submit  a  question  to  the  mana- 
gers before  I  vote.     I  send  it  to  the  desk. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  propounded  to  the  honorable  managers  by 
the  senator  from  Missouri  will  be  read. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows : 

If  the  President  shall  be  convicted,  he  must  be  removed  from  office. 

If  his  f^uilt  should  be  so  gi'eat  as  to  demand  such  punishment,  he  may  be  disqualified  to 
bold  and  enjoy  any  office  under  the  United  States. 

Is  not  the  evidence  now  offered  competent  to  go  before  the  court  in  mitigation? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President  and  senators,  I  am  instructed  to  answer 
to  that,  that  we  do  not  believe  this  would  be  evidence  in  any  event ;  but  all 
•'vidence  in  mitigation  of  punishment  must  be  submitted  after  verdict  and  before 
judgment,  save  where  the  jury  fix  the  punishment  in  their  verdict,  which  is  not 
the  case  here.  Evidence  in  mitigation  never  is  put  in  to  influence  the  verdict ; 
but  if  a  verdict  of  guilty  is  rendered,  then  circumstances  of  mitigation,  such  aa 
good  character  or  possible  commission  of  the  crime  by  inadvertence,  can  be  given, 
but  not  upon  the  issue. 

Mr.  Coi\KLii\G.  Is  that  the  rule  of  practice  before  this  tribunal? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  know  as  there  are  any  rules  of  practice  here. 

Mr.  CoNKLiiNG.  Would  that  be  applicable  to  this  tribunal? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  asked  by  the  honorable  senator  from  New  York 
whether  it  would  be  applicable  before  this  tribunal.  Under  the  general  practice 
of  impeachments  judgment  is  never  given  by  the  House  of  Peers  until  demanded 
by  the  Commons.  Whether  that  may  be  applicable  here  or  not  I  do  not  mean 
nt  this  moment  to  determine.  I  say  judgment  never  is  given  until  demanded  ; 
and  as  this  judgment  is  to  be  given  as  a  separate  act,  if  evidence  in  mitigation  is 
apphcable  at  all,  it  must  be  given  to  influence  that  event.  There  is  an  appre- 
ciable time  in  this  tribunal,  as  in  all  others,  between  a  verdict  of  guilty  and  the 
act  of  judgment ;  and  if  any  such  evidence  can  be  given  at  all,  it  must,  in  my 
judgment,  be  given  at  that  time.  It  certainly  cannot  be  given  for  any  other 
purpose. 

I  have  already  stated  that  we  do  not  believe  it  to  be  competent  at  all,  and  I 


700  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PKESIDENT. 

am  so  instructed  by  my  associates ;  but,  if  ever  competent,  it  cannot  be  com- 
petent until  the  time  arrives  for  the  consideration  of  the  judgment.  If  I  may 
ask  a  question,  I  would  inquire,  do  the  Presdent's  counsel  offer  this  evidence  in 
mitigation  ?  because  if  they  do,  that  will  raise  another  question.  We  shall  not 
object  to  it,  perhaps,  even  now,  in  mitigation,  because  that  will  be  a  confession 
of  guilt.     [Laughter.] 

The  Chief  Jistick.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  offer  to  prove  once  more. 

The  offer  was  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  at  tlio  cabinet  meetings  between  the  passaji^e  of  the  tennre-of-civil-office 
bill  and  the  order  of  the  •21st  of  February,  Jd6S,  for  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  ujjon  occa- 
sions when  the  condition  of  the  public  service,  as  affected  by  the  of)enition  of  that  bill, 
came  up  for  the  consideration  and  advice  of  the  cabinet,  it  was  considered  by  the  President 
and  cabinet  that  a  proper  regard  to  the  public  service  made  it  desirable  that  upon  some  proper 
case  a  judicial  determination  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  should  be  obtained.         » 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  yon  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  evidence 
offered  by  the  counsel  for  the  President  should  be  received  will,  when  your 
names  are  called,  answer  yea  ;  those  of  the  contrary  opinion,  nay.  The  Secre- 
tary will  call  the  roll. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  19,  nays  30  ;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fes.senden,  Fowler, 
Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Sauls- 
bury,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  and  Vickers — 19. 

Nays — Messrs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Frelinghuysen,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Sprague, 
Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Willey,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 30. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Sumner,  and  Wade — 5. 

So  the  Senate  ruled  the  offer  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  A.NTHO.w,  (at  2  o'clock  p.  m.)  I  move  that  the  Senate  take  a  recess 
for  fifteen  minutes. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  at  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  Chief 
Justice  resumed  the  chair. 

GiDEO\  Welles's  examination  continued. 

By  Mr.  EvART5  : 

Q.  Mr.  Welles,  was  there  within  the  period  embraced  in  the  inquiry  in  the 
last  question,  and  at  any  discussions  or  deliberations  of  the  cabinet  concerning 
the  operations  of  the  civil-teuurS  act,  or  the  requirements  of  the  public  service 
in  respect  to  the  same,  any  suggestion  or  intimation  of  any  kind  touching  or 
looking  to  the  vacation  of  any  office,  or  obtaining  possession  of  the  same  by 
force  1 

A.  Never,  on  any  occasion 

k     Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Stop  a  moment.     We  object. 

The  Chief  Ju.stice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  will  please  reduce  the 
question  to  writing. 

The  question  was  reduced  to  writing  and  sent  to  the  desk,  and  read,  as 
follows  : 

Was  there,  within  the  period  embraced  in  the  inquiry  in  the  last  question,  and  at  any 
discussions  or  deliberations  of  tlie  cabinet  concerning  the  operation  of  the  tenure-of-civil- 
office  act  and  the  HMjuiremenis  of  the  put^lic  service  in  regard  to  the  same,  any  suggestion  or 
intimation  whatever  touching  or  looking  to  the  vacatmn  of  any  otlice  by  force  or  getting  pos- 
session of  the  same  by  force. 

Mr.  ]\Ianager  Butler.  To  that  we  object.  We  think  it  wholly  within  the  pre- 
vious ruling  ;  and  if  it  were  not,  it  would  he  incompetent  upon  another  g'ouiul — 
that  to  show  that  the  President  did  not  state  to  A,  B,  or  C  that  he  meant  to 
use  force  by  no  means  proves  that  he  did  not  tell  E,  F  and  G. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  701 

Mr.  Ev'ARTS.  We  may  hereafter  call  persons  to  testify  that  lie  (li<l  not  tell 
E,  F  and  G,  and  that  would  not  prove  that  he  did  not  tell  A,  B  and  C. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.   And  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  alphabet. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Yes;  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  time.  The  question  is,  Mr.  Chief 
Justice  and  Senators,  a  negative  to  exclude  a  conclusion ;  and  if  the  subject  of 
force  or  the  purpose  of  force  is  within  the  premises  of  this  issue  and  trial,  evi- 
dence on  the  part  of  the  President  to  show  that  in  all  the  deliberations  for  his 
official  conduct  force  never  entered  into  contemplation  is,  as  I  suppose,  rightfully 
offered  on  our  part. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  We  object  to  the  question,  whether  he  told  his  cabi- 
net he  would  or  would  not  use  force,  as  wholly  immaterial  and  as  within  the 
last  ruling. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  does  not  understand  the  honorable 
manager  to  object  to  it  as  leading. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No;  it  is  not  worth  while  to  take  that  objection.  We 
wish  to  come  to  substance. 

The  Chi  EF  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Grimes.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question. 

The  chief  clerk  again  read  the  question. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  this  question  is 
admissible  will,  as  your  names  are  called,  answer  yea;  those  of  the  contrary 
opinion,  nay. 

Mr.  Ferry.  I  was  requested  by  the  senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  Drake]  to 
state  that  he  was  called  away  by  sickness  in  his  family. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas  18,  nays,  26 
as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Edmunds,  Fessenden,  Fowler, 
Grimes,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Trum 
bull,  Van  Winkle,  and  Vickers — 18. 

Nays — Messrs  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cra^in,  Ferry,  Fre- 
linghuysen,  TIarlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  MoiTill  of  Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Pat 
terson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton,  Willey 
Williams,  Wilson,  and  Ydtes — 26.  , 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Cameron,  Doolittlc,  Drake,  Henderson,  Morton,  Norton,  Nye 
Sprague,  Sumner,  and  Wade — 10. 

So  the  Senate  decided  the  question  to  be  inadmissible. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  are  through  with  the  witness. 
Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Mr.  Welles,  you  were  asked  if  you  were  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  you 
said  you  held  under  a  commission,  and  you  gave  the  date  of  the  commi.ssion  ? 

A.  March,  18G1. 

Q.  You  have  had  no  other  1 

A.  No  other. 

Q,  And  you  have  been  Secretary  of  the  Navy  down  to  to-day  ? 

A.  I  have  continued  to  this  time. 

Q.  Has  Lorenzo  Thomas  acted  as  a  member  of  the  cabinet  down  to  to-day 
from  the  21st  of  February  ? 

A.  He  has  met  in  the  cabinet  since  that  time. 

Q,  Did  he  meet  as  a  member  or  outsider  ? 

Mr,  EvARTS.  I  submit,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  that  this  is  no  cros.-s-examination 
upon  any  matter  we  have  examined  u^ion,  as  far  as  General  Thomas  is  concerned. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  waive  it.     I  will  not  have  a  word  upon  that. 

By  Mr,  Manager  Butler  : 
Q.  Now,  then,  you  told  us  of  something  said  between  you  and  the  President 


702  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

about  a  raovement  of  troops.  I  want  to  knoAV  a  little  more  accurately  when 
that  was.     In  the  first  place  what  day  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  on  the  22d  of  February. 

Q.  Is  there  any  doubt  about  that  in  your  mind  ? 

A.  None  at  all. 

Q.  "What  time  was  it? 

A.  It  was  not  far  from  twelve  o'clock. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  fix  that  time  of  day  by  something  that  happened 
with  the  Attorney  General.     What  was  that? 

A.  I  called  on  the  President  on  the  22d,  about  twelve  o'clock.  The  recep- 
tion for  ufficial  business  at  the  Navy  Department  is  from  eleven  to  twelve.  I 
left  as  soon  as  I  well  could,  after  that  matter  was  over,  and  therefore  it  was  a 
little  before  twelve,  I  suppose.  W^hen  I  arrived  at  the  President's  and  called 
on  him,  the  Attorney  General  was  there.  While  there,  the  nomination  of  Mr. 
Ewing  was  made  out. 

Q.  Never  mind  about  that ;  I  am  not  now  speaking  of  that. 

A.  I  am  speaking  of  that.  The  private  secretary  wished  to  get  it  up  to  the 
Senate  as  early  as  he  could  ;  and  Mr.  Stanbery  remarked  that  he  wished  to  be 
here,  I  think,  about  twelve;  that  he  had  some  appointment  about  twelve;  and 
it  had  got  to  be  nearly  that  time  then. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  he  had  some  appointment  in  the  Supreme 
Court.     Was  that  so  ? 

A.  I  will  not  be  sure  that  it  was. 

Q.  Did  you  not  state  yesterday  that  he  had  an  appointment  in  the  Supreme 
Court  1 

A.  Perhaps  I  inferred  that  it  was  there ;  I  cannot  say  that  he  said  it  was  at 
the  Supreme  Court,  or  where  it  was. 

Q.  Did  you  not  so  testify  yesterday  ? 

A.  Perhaps  I  did. 

Q.  How  was  the  fact  ? 

A.  He  had  an  engagement. 

Q,  How  was  the  fact  as  to  your  testimony  yesterday — not  what  perhaps  you 
did,  but  how  do  you  remember  you  testified  on  that  point  yesterday  ? 

A.  I  presume  I  testified,  that  he  was  to  come  here  at  12  o'clock  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  because  that  was  my  inference.  I  supposed  it  was  so.  He 
had  an  engagement  at  12  o'clock,  and  wanted  to  get  away  as  soon  as  he  could  ; 
and  it  was  in  connection  with  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Ewing,  which  >vent  up  at 
the  same  time. 

Q.  Have  you  not  heard  since  yesterday  that  the  court  did  not  sit  on 
Saturdays  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  heard  anything  on  that  subject? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  they  sit  on  Saturdays  or  not? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  upon  that  matter  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  did  you  learn  that  there  was  any  other  movement  of  troops,  except 
an  order  upon  one  officer  of  the  regiment  to  meet  General  Emory  ? 

A.   Well,  I  heard  of  two  or  three  things  that  evening. 

Q.  I  am  now  speaking  of  the  olficers  of  the  regiment. 

A.   I  understand. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  that  there  was  any  other  movement  of  troops  except  an 
Older  to  an  ofiicer  of  the  regiment  *to  meet  General  Emory  ? 

A.  I  heard  tlial  the  officers  of  the  regiment  were  required  to  meet  at  head- 
quarters that  evening. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  703 

Q.  At  what  time  ? 
A.  That  evening. 
Mr.  EVARTS.  The  21st. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  The  evening  of  the  21st  ? 

A.  The  evening  of  the  21st. 

Q.  And  that  the  officers  were  called  to  headquarters  ? 

A.  The  officers  were  called  to  headquarters. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  whether  it  was  to  give  them  directions  about  keepiug  away 
from  a  masquerade  or  going  to  it  as  a  reason  why  they  were  called  to  head- 
quarters ? 

A.  I  did  not  hear  the  reasons.  If  I  had  heard  the  reasons  perhaps  they 
would  have  satisfied  me.     I  do  not  know  how  that  may  be. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear 'the  reasons  1 

A.  No ;  I  knew  the  fact  that  they  had  been  called  to  meet  at  headquarters 
that  evening,  which  was  an  unusual  order,  and  were  called  from  a  party,  I 
believe. 

Q.  What  party  1 

A.  A  party  that  was  in  F  or  G  street,  I  think  ;  a  reception. 

Q.  That  they  were  called  from  a  party  to  go  to  headquarters.  Now,  sir, 
that  was  all  the  movement  of  troops  you  spoke  of  yesterday  to  us,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  spoke  of  others.     I  spoke  of  that. 

Q.  Had  you  any  other  in  your  mind  yesterday  but  that  1 

A.  There  were  some  other  movements  in  my  mind  ;  but  perhaps  not  con- 
nected with  General  Emory,  unless  they  were  called  there  for  a  purpose. 

Q.  There  was  none  communicated  to  you,  whatever  might  have  been  in  your 
mind,  was  there  1 

A.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  none  communicated  1" 

Q.  No  other  mo-vemeuts  were  communicated  to  you,  whatever  may  have  been 
in  your  mind,  that  evening  ? 

A.  I  heard  of  movements  that  evening,  or  heard  of  appearances.  I  heard 
that  the  War  Department  was  lighted  up,  which  was  an  unusual  matter. 

Q.  You  heard  that  the  Wal-  Department  was  lighted  up  ? 

A.  I  did.  I  do  not  know  that  I  alluded  to  that  to  President  Johnson  ;  but 
that  was  one  of  the  circumstances  that  I  heard  of  the  evening  before. 

Q.  Then  the  movement  was  the  call  of  the  officers  of  one  regiment  to  meet 
General  Emory.     How  many  officers  did  you  hear  were  called  ? 

A.  I  did  not  hear  the  number  of  officers.  I  heard  that  General  Emory's 
son  and  his  orderlies,  one  or  two,  had  called  at  a  party,  requesting  that  any 
officers  belonging  to  the  fifth  regiment,  and,  I  believe,  to  his  own,  should  repair 
forthwith  to  headquarters ;  which  was  thought  to  be  a  very  unusual  movement. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  for  your  thoughts  about  it. 

A.  Well,  I  thought  it  was. 

Q.  Those  officers  were  asked  to  come  to  headquarters.  That  was  all  you  stated 
to  the  President  of  movements  of  troops  ? 

A.  I  will  not  say  that  was  all. 

Q.  Is  it  all  that  you  remember  that  you  did  ? 

A.  I  will  not  be  sure  whether  I  stated  to  him  the  fact  of  the  lighting  up  of 
the  War  Department  that  night,  for  that  was  the  first  of  the  iutreuchment 
there,  or  whether  I  alluded  to  the  fact  that  there  was  a  company,  or  part  of  a 
company,  reported  to  me  as  being  seen  in  the 

Q.  Excuse  me;  I  am  only  asking  what  you  stated,  not  what  you  think  you 
did  not  state. 

A.  I  say  I  do  not  know  that  I  stated  that. 

Q.  And  I  am  asking  for  what  you  stated. 


704  IMPEACHMEXT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  I  eay  I  do  not  know  tliat  I  stated  to  the  President  that  the  War  Dopart- 
Kient  was  lighted  up  that  night. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  you  for  what  you  do  not  know  you  stated,  but  wiiat  you 
know  you  did  state  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Your  question  was,  whether  that  was  all  he  stated,  and  he  says 
he  cannot  say  whether  it  was  all  or  not. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  am  asking  if  it  was  all  he  stated,  and  I  am  asking 
not  for  what  he  did  not  state,  but  for  what  he  did. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  He  says  he  cannot  say  but  that  he  did. 

The  Witness.  I  stated,  to  him  in  relation  to  General  Emory  and  what  I 
heard  in  regard  to  him.  Whether  I  alluded  to  the  other  facts  in  my  mind  I 
cannot  say  now. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well;  that  is  exactly  what  I  want ;  but  I  did 
not  want  to  get  at  what  the  f^icts  were.    The  22d  was  to  be  kept  as  a  holiday  ? 

A.  It  is  a  half  holiday,  I  believe.  The  War  Department  closed  that  oiiice  ; 
but  I  suppose  that  is  in  violation  of  law.  The  law  is  that  the  departments 
shall  be  kept  open,  each  of  them,  every  day  of  the  year,  save  Sundays  and  tlie 
Fourth  of  July  and  the  25th  of  December.  The  War  Department  has  some- 
times  

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  Excuse  me;   I  did  not  ask  you  for  your  legal  opinion. 

The  Witness.  I  am  not  giving  a  legal  opinion.     I  am  stating  facts. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  say  it  is  in  violation  of  law.  I  suppose  that  is  a 
legal  opinion  I 

The  Witness.  You  can  read  the  law  and  see  what  it  is. 

Q.  I  am  only  asking  you  whether,  in  fact,  it  is  kept  as  a  holiday  ? 

A.  We  did  not  keep  it  as  a  holiday,  as  we  keep  the  Fourth  of  July.  The 
clerks  were  at  the  department  and  were  required  to  clear  their  desks  before  they 
left. 

Q.  How  was  it  at  the  War  Department? 

A.  I  understood — if  you  will  allow  me  to  state  that — that  the  War  Depart- 
ment was  closed  on  that  day.  I  have  understood  it  was  closed  on  other  days; 
but  the  Navy  Department  had  not  be<'n  closed  in  that  way. 

Q.  I  do  not  want  any  comparison  between  the  Navy  and  War  Departments. 
I  only  ask  the  ffxct  if  it  was  closed  on  that  day.  Did  you  inquire  whether  the 
officers  were  called  together  to  notify  them  that  the  next  day  was  to  be  a  holi- 
day or  not  ? 

A.  I  made  no  inquiries  on  the  subject  of  others,  but  communicated  to  the 
President  what  I  had  learned. 

Edgar  T.  Welles  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Question.  You  are  the  son  of  Mr.  Secretary  Welles  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  employed  in  the  Navy  Department  ] 
A.  Yes,  sir;   I  am  chief  clerk  of  the  department. 

Q.,  (presenting  a  paper  to  the  witness.)  Please  look  at  this  paper  and  say  if 
that  is  a  blank  form  of  navy  agent's  commissions  as  used  in  the  department  ? 
A.  It  is  the  blank  form  that  was  used. 
Q.  Before  the  civil  tenure  bill  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Evarts.  We  propose  to  offer  it  in  evidence. 
(Tlie  document  was  handed  to  Mr.  Manager  Butler.) 

Mr.  Manager  BuTLER.   We  have  no  ohjectiou  to  ihat.     Do  you  want  it  read? 
Mr.  Evarts.  No. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  705 

The  doeument  thus  put  in  evidence  is  as  follows : 

President  of  the  United  States  of  America: 
To  all  who  shall  sec  these  presents,  greeting  : 

Know  ye,  that  reposing^  special  trust  and  eoiifidenco  in  the  patriotism,  fidelity,  and  abilities 

of ,  1  do,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 

States,  appoint  hiui  navy  agent  for  the . 

He  is  therefore  carefully  and  dilipfently  to  discharp^o  the  duties  of  navy  agent,  by  doing 
and  performing  ail  manner  of  things  thereunto  appertaining  ;  and  he  is  to  observe  and  follow 
the  orders  and  directions  which  he  may  from  time  to  time  receive  from  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

This  commission  to  continue  in  force  during  the  term  of  four  years  from  the . 

Given  under  my  hand  at  Washington,  this day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

[l.  s.  ]     Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and ,  and  in  the year  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States. 

By  the  President  : 

Secretary  of  the  Nary. 
Registered. 

By  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  Do  you  remember  on  Friday,  the  21st  of  February,  that  your  attention 
was  drawn  to  some  movement,  or  supposed  movement,  connected  with  military 
organization  here  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  At  what  hour  of  the  day  was  that? 

A.   I  should  suppose  it  was  about  five  o'clock. 

Q.  What  was  it,  and  how  was  it  brought  to  your  attention  1 

A.   I   was  attending  a   small  reception,  and  the  lady  of  the  house  informed 


Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Excuse  me.  You  need^ot  state  what  the  lady  of  the 
house  said. 

Mr.  Evarts.  It  does  not  prove  the  truth  of  the  lady's  statement,  but  only 
what  it  was. 

Mr.  ]\Iauager  Butler.  I  beg  your  pardon  ;  but  as  nothing  but  the  truth  is  to 
be  in  evidence  we  do  not  want  the  lady's  statement. 

Mr.  Evarts.  It  came  to  his  notice  and  he  acted  upon  it.  That  is  the  truth 
to  be  proved. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  In  answer  to  that,  the  truth  is  that  this  is  not  the 
proper  way  to  prove  the  truth  of  a  case  of  impeachment,  by  putting  in  what 
the  lady  said  to  this  man.  No  matter  how  he  got  the  information  ;  let  him  give 
the  information  he  gave  to  his  father. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Very  well.  (To  the  witness.)  What  information  did  you  get, 
whether  it  was  from  a  lady  or  not,  I  do  not  care  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir ;  the  question  should  be,  what  information 
did  he  give  to  his  father  ] 

Mr.  Evarts.  I  want  to  prove  that  he  gave  the  sarae'that  he  got ;  that  he  did 
not  make  it  up.  I  certainly  am  permitted  to  prove  what  occurred.  It  will  all 
be  over  in  three  minutes.  (To  the  witness.)  Did  you  gain  any  information 
concerning  it  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  On  the  whole,  I  think  it  had  better  come  in  ;  I  will 
not  object. 

Mr.  Evarts.  It  is  utterly  immaterial. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  think  it  is. 

The  WiT.N'ESS.  General  Emory  had  sent  his  orderlies  there   that   afternoon 

requesting  certain  officers  named  to  me  to  report   to  headquarters  immediately, 

and  that  after  that  General '  Emory's  son,  Dr.  Tom.   Emory,  had   come   there 

with  the  request  that  any  officers  of  two  branches  of  the  service — I  do  not 

45  I  P 


706  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

recall  what  two  branches,  cavalry  and  infantry  or  cavalry  and  artillery — should 
report  at  headquarters  immediately. 

Air.  Co\i\KSS.  Mr.  President,  we  cannot  hear  the  witness.  "We  did  not  hear 
the  answer  to  the  last  question. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Does  the  senator  desire  it  to  be  repeated  ? 

Mr.  CoxNESS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  (to  witness.)  Be  so  good  as  to  repeat  it. 

A.  That  General  Emory  had  sent  certain  orderlies  requesting  officers,  who 
were  named,  to  report  at  headquarters  without  delay,  and  had  also  sent  his  son, 
requesting  that  any  officers  of  two  branches  of  the  service,  cavahy  and  infantry, 
or  cavalry  and  artillery,  should  report  at  headquarters  immediately. 

Q.  After  this,  did  you  communicate  this  to  your  fother  1 

A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  ? 

A.  I  should  suppose  it  was  about  7  o'clock. 

Q.  The  same  evening  ? 

A.  The  same  evening,  between  7  and  S  o'clock. 

Q.  Were  you  sent  on  any  message  to  the  President  concerning  this  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  By  your  father  1 

A.  I  was  sent  by  him  over  to  the  President's. 

Q.  Did  you  go  ? 

A.  1  did. 

Q.  At  what  hour  in  the  evening  ? 

A.  Between  8  and  9  o'clock  ;    shortly  after  I  went  home. 

Q.  Was  it  on  an  occasion  of  any  engagement  of  the  President  ? 

A.  The  President  was  engaged  at  dinner. 

Q.  Was  it  a  diplomatic  dinner  1 

A.  It  was  a  state  dinner.     I  do  not  remember  precisely  the  character  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him? 

A.  I  did  not  see  him  on  that  account. 

Q.   And  you  reported  to  your  father  ? 

A.  I  reported  to  him  that  I  did  not  see  him;  that  there  was  nobody  at  the 
President's  Mansion  to  communicate  with. 

Q.  Was  anything  further  done  that  night  that  you  know  of  on  the  siibject? 

A.  Nothing  further  that  I  know  of. 

No  cross-examination. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  we  have  in  attendance,  to  give 
their  evidence,  the  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior,  and  the  Postmaster  General,  and  we  offer  them  as  witnesses 
to  the  same  ])oints  that  we  have  inquired  of  from  Mr.  Welles,  and  that  have 
been  covered  by  the  rulings  of  the  court.  If  objection  is  made  to  their  exam- 
ination, of  course  it  must  be  considered  as  covered  by  the  rulings  already  made. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  did  not  fully  understand  the  last  witness,  and  I  should  like 
to  have  him  recalled  for  a  moment. 

Edgar  T.  Welles  recalled. 

Mr.  Williams.  If  allowable,  I  should  like  to  inquire  of  the  witness  whether 
what  he  communicated  to  his  father  was  t()ld  to  him  by  this  lady,  or  whether  it 
was  communicated  to  him  by  the  ofhcers? 

A.  If  was  told  to  me  by  this  lady. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  tender  the  witnesses  I  have  named  for  examination  upon 
the  points  that  Mr.  Secretary  Welles  has  been  interrogated  concerning,  and  that 
the  rulings  of  the  Senate  liave  covered.  If  the  objection  is  made,  it  must  be 
considered  as  covered  by  that  ruling. 

Mr.  IManager  Butler.  We  object.     We  have  not  objected  that  Mr.  Welles 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  707 

was  not  a  credible  witness,  but  only  tliat  the  testimony  to  be  given  was  not 
proper. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  understand  that. 

AlexAxXDer  W.  Randall  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  EvARTS : 

Question.  Mr.  Randall,  you  are  Postmaster  General  ? 

Answer.  I  am,  sir. 

Q.  Prom  what  time  have  you  held  that  office  ? 

A.  I  was  appointed  in  July,  18G6 ;  I  have  held  it  from  that  time. 

Q.  Before  that  time  had  you  been  in  the  department ;  and  if  so,  in  what 
capacity  ? 

A.  I  had  been  from  the  ftili  of  1862.  I  was  First  Assistant  Postmaster 
General. 

Q.  Since  the  passage  of  the  civil-tenure  act,  have  cases  arisen  in  the  postal 
service  in  which  officers  came  in  question  for  their  conduct  and  duty  in  the 
service  ? 

A.  They  have. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  case  of  Foster  Blodgett  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  was  he  ? 

A.  He  was  postmaster  at  Augusta,  in  Georgia. 

Q.  Was  there  any  suspension  of  Mr.  Blodgett  in  his  office  or  in  its  duties  1 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  suspension  must  have  been  evidenced  by  some 
writing. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  have  asked  the  question  whether  there  was  one. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  If  it  was  in  writing  I  desire  it  to  be  produced. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  1  expect  to  produce  it. 

The  Witness.  There  was. 

Q.  By  whom  was  it  made  1 

A.  It  was  made  by  me. 

Q.  As  Postmaster  General  1 

A.  As  Postmaster  General. 

Q.  Had  the  President  anything  to  do  with  it  ? 

A.  Nothing  at  all. 

Q.  Did  he  know  of  it  ? 

A.  Not  when  it  was  done,  nor  before  it. 

Q.,  (handing  some  papers  to  the  witness.)  Please  look  at  these  papers  and 
say  if  they  are  the  official  papers  of  that  act  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  they  are  certified  to  be  by  me  as  Postmaster  General. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  a  complaint  against  Mr.  Blodgett? 

A.  There  was  one ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  was  it  upon  that  complaint  that  your  action  was  taken  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  In  what  form  did  the  complaint  come  to  you,  and  of  what  foct  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Let  the  complaint  itself  state. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  have  asked  in  what  form  it  came. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  complaint  Avill  speak  for  itself.  This  form  is  in 
writing. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  do  not  know  that. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Then  I  object  to  the  information  of  others. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  have  asked  in  what  form  the  complaint  came  to  him.  Is 
that  objected  to? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  objected  to;  whether  it  was  in 
writing  or  verbal. 

The  Witness.  It  came  in  writing  and  verbally,  both. 


708  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr  ^fanager  Butlkr.  We  shall  have  the  writing,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Yes,  sir.  (To  the  witness.)  And  on  the  complaint,  verbally 
and  in  writing,  this  action  was  taken  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  propose  to  put  in  evidence  these  papers. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Let  me  see  them  first. 

After  an  examination  of  the  papers, 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Have  you  a  copy  of  the  indictment  referred  to  in  these 
papers  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  not  here. 

Mr.  Curtis.  Governor  Randall  has  it  here. 

Mr.  EvARTS,  (to  the  witness.)  Have  you  it  here  ? 

The  Witness.  I  do  not  think  a  copy  of  the  indictment  is  here. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  object  to  these  papers,  because,  very  carefully, 
there  has  been  left  out  the  only  thing  that  is  of  any  consequence. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Whose  care  do  you  refer  to? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  man  who  did  it. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Who  is  that? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  know.  This  Mr.  Blodgett  is  now  attempted 
to  be  affected  in  his  absence,  and  I  feel  a  little  bound  to  take  care  of  him, 
l)ecause,  being  called  as  a  witness  here,  he  must  be  dealt  justly  with.  The 
])apers  they  now  offer  refer  to  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Blodgett's  misconduct,  and 
the  evidence  is  not  produced  here,  not  even  a  recital  of  it ;  and  therefore  I  say 
it  is  unjust  to  put  in  Mr.  Randall's  recital  of  a  fact  that  happened  when  he  has 
in  his  department  the  fact  itself,  and  which  has  been,  by  somebody  to  me  unknown, 
carefully  kept  away  from  here. 

Mr.  EvAR'i'S.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  senators,  the  honorable  managers  chose, 
for  some  reason  and  ground  best  known  to  themselves,  to  offer  in  evidence  as  a 
part  of  this  incrimination  an  act  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  the 
removal  of  Foster  Blodgett.     I  propose  to  show  what  that  act  was. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  object,  if  you  will  show  what  that  act  was, 
and  not  keep  back  the  paper  whichis  the  inculpation  of  Mr.  Blodgett. 

Mr.  Evakts.  I  am  not  inculpating  Mr.  Blodgett.  I  am  proving  what  the  act 
of  the  executive  officer  of  the  United  States  was  that  you  have  sought  to  put  in 
evidence  by  oral  testimony. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  have  put  in  the  fact  that  Mr.  Blodgett  was  removed 
upon  a  complaint  in  writing  of  misconduct,  and  you  keep  back  that  complaint 
in  writing. 

Mr.  Evarts.  And  you  said  that  if  the  act  was  in  writing  it  must  be  proved 
by  the  letters,  and  I  agreed  to  it,  and  now  produce  them. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  You  do  not  produce  the  complaint. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Well,  we  will  not  wrangle  about  it.  I  offer  the  official  act  of 
the  department  in  the  removal  of  A[r.  Blodg(!tt. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  And  1  object  that  it  is  not  fair  play  unless  you  bring 
in  the  complaint. 

Mr.  Evarts.  The  learned  manager  treats  this  as  if  it  were  a  question  of 
impeaching  Mr.  Blodgett.  I  am  giving  in  evidence  the  act  of  the  executive 
department  which  y(tu  brought  in  testimony. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Wc  proved  the  act  ourselves.  We  proved  that  they 
removed  Blodgett.  Now,  then,  there  is  no  occasion  to  prove  that  over  again,  if 
they  are  going  to  stop  there. 

Mr.  Evarts.  Yon  made  it  iiicul]);ition,  and  we  wanl  Id  pr(tve  what  the  act  was. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  'J'heu  produce  the  Mhole  thing  on  Avhich  it  was 
grounded. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  709 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  is  the  paper? 

Mr.  Grimks.  I  call  for  the  reading  of  the  paper. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  If  you  want  the  iiulictineut  produced  it  may  certainly  be  pro- 
duced ;  but  the  fact  that  it  is  not  here  is  no  legal  objection  to  these  papers. 

Mr.  JoMNSON".   What  is  the  paper  produced  ? 

The  Ohfef  Justice.  The  counsel  for  the  President  will  state  what  they 
propose  to  prove  in  writing, 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  offer  in  evidence  the  order  and  letters  handed  to  the  clerk, 
and  desire  that  they  may  be  read. 

The  Chif^f  Justice.  It  will  be  necessary  to  state  what  the  order  and  letters 
are ;  otherwise  the  court  will  be  unable  to  judge  of  their  admissibility. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  testimony  of  Governor  Randall  has  described  them  as  the 
official  action  of  the  department.  I  oflFer  in  evidence  the  official  action  of  the 
Post  Office  Department  in  accomplishing  the  removal  of  Foster  Blodgett,  which 
removal  was  put  in  evidence  by  the  managers. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  counsel  will  please  reduce  their  offi^r  to  writing. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  think  Ave  have  a  right  to  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  letters 
to  know  upon  what  we  are  called  to  vote. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Senate  undoubtedly  have  a  right  to  order  the 
letters  to  be  read. 

Mr.  Sherman.  We  are  called  upon  to  decide  a  question  of  evidence,  and  I 
should  like  to  know  what  is  offered  from  the  papers  themselves. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  usual  mode  of  proposing  to  prove  is  by  stating 
the  nature  of  the  proof  proposed  to  be  offered,  and  then,  upon  an  objection,  the 
Senate  decides  whether  proof  of  that  description  can  be  introduced.  It  is  not 
usual  to  read  the  proof  itself.  Undoubtedly  it  is  competent  for  the  Senate  to 
order  it  to  be  read. 

Mr.  Sherman.  If  the  counsel  Avill  state  the  matter  so  that  we  can  act  upon 
it  without  taking  time  in  reading  the  papers,  I  have  no  objection. 

The  offer  to  prove  of  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  was  reduced  to  writing 
and  sent  to  the  desk. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  offer  to  prove  made  by  the 
counsel  for  the  President. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  in  evidence  the  official  action  of  the  Post  Office  Department  in  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Blodgett,  which  removal  was  put  in  evidence  by  oral  testimony  by  the  managers. 

Mr.  iManager  Butler.  We  will  not  object  further.  We  think  we  can  get  in 
the  indictment  somehow. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  objection  is  withdrawn. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  I  ask  the  clerk  to  read  the  papers  in  their  order. 

The  Chief"  Justice.  The  clerk  will  read   the  papers  offered  by  the  counsel. 

The  chief  clerk  read  the  papers,  as  follows  : 

A. 

Post  Office  Department,  January  3,  1868. 
It  appearing  from  an  exemplified  copy  of  the  bill  of  indictment  now  on  file  in  this  depart- 
ment against  Foster  Blodgett,  postmaster  at  Augusta,  Georgia,  that  he  has  been  indicted  iu 
the  United  States  district  court  for  the  southern  district  of  Georgia  for  perjury:   It  is 

Ordered,  That  said  Foster  Blodgett  be  suspended  from  the  ofiice  of  postmaster  at  Augusta, 
Georgia,  aforesaid ;  and  that  George  W.  Summers  be  designated  as  special  agent  of  this 
department  to  take  charge  of  the  post  office  thereat  and  discharge  all  its  duties  until  further 
action  shall  be  had  ])y  the  President  and  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

ALEX.  W.  RANDALL,  Postmaster  General. 


Post  Office  Department, 

Washington,  D.  C,  April  \7,  1868. 
This  is  to  certify  that  the  foregoing,  marked  A,  is  a  true  copy  of  an  original  order  on  file 
in  this  department. 


710  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

lu  witness  wliereof,  I  liave  liereunto  set  my  liMiid,  auil  caused  the  seal  of  the  Post  Office 
Departnieut  to  be  aflixed,  at  the  General  I'ost  OtHce  ia  the  city  of  Washington,  District  ot 
Columbia,  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[L.  s.]  .  ALEXANDER  W.  RANDALL, 

Postmaster  General. 


B. 

Thk  Post  Office  Department 

To  whom  it  may  concern  : 
Know  ye,  that  Foster  Blodgett  having  been  suspended  from  the  office  of  postmaster  at 
Augusta,  Georgia,  under  a  bill  of  indictment  for  perjury,  George  W.   Summers  is   hereby 
designated  a  special  agent  of  this  department  to  take  charge  of  the  post  office  and  public 
property  thereat,  and  to  discharge  all  the  duties  of  the  aforesaid  office, 

VVitness  my  hand  and  the  seal  of  said  department  at  Washington  this  3d  day  of  Jan- 
uary, A.  D.  1866. 

[L.  s.]  ALEXANDER  W.  RANDALL, 

Postmaster  Oineral. 

Post  Office  Department, 

ffushington,  D.  C,  Aprd  17, 136S. 

This  is  to  certify  that  the  foregoing,  marked  B,  is  a  true  copy  of  an  original  commission 
on  record  in  this  department. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Post  Office 
Department  to  be  affixed  at  the  General  Post  Office  in  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of 
Columbia,  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[L.  s.]  ALEXANDER  W.  RANDALL, 

Postmaster  General. 


C. 

Post  Office  Depatrment, 
Appointment  Office,  January  3,  16G8. 

Sir:  Enclosed  please  find  blank  oath  and  bond  to  be  executed  by  yourself  and  sureties  as 
special  agent  of  this  department  to  take  charge  of  the  post  office  at  Augusta,  Richmond 
county,  Georgia.  So  soon  as  the  same  shall  have  been  executed  and  placed  in  the  mail 
addressed  to  this  department,  you  will  then  exhibit  the  enclosed  commission  to  Foster  Blod- 
gett,  or  to  the  person  in  charge  of  the  post  office  at  Augusta  aforesaid,  take  possession  of  the 
public  property  thereafter,  and  enter  on  the  full  discharge  of  all  the  duties  thereof,  as  required 
by  the  postal  laws  and  regulations. 

You  will  continue  to  conduct  the  office  in  the  same  manner  as  though  you  were  postmaster 
until  the  President  and  Senate  shall  have  taken  further  action  in  the  premises. 
Your  salary  will  be  at  the  rate  of  $1,G0U  a  year,  with  .$3  per  diem  for  subsistence. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ST,  JOHN  B.  L.  SKINNER, 

First  Assistant  Postmaster  General. 
George  W.  Summers,  Esq.,  Aii^usta,  Georgia. 

Post  Office  Department, 

Washington,  April  17,  1868. 
This  is  to  certify  that  the  foregoing,  marked  C,  is  a  true  copy  of  a  letter  on  record  in  this 
department. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Post  Office 
Department  to  be  affixed  at  the  General  Post  Office  in  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of 
Columbia,  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[L.  S.]  ALEX.  W.  RANDALL,  Postmaster  General. 


D. 

Post  Office  Department, 
Apppuintment  Office,  Janiianj  3,  18G8. 
Sir:  a  copy  of  the  bill  of  indictment  found  against  you  in  the  United  States  district  court 
for  the  southern  district  of  Georgia,  for  jjcrjury,  lias  been  placed  on  file  in  tiiis  department, 
and  in  consecjuence  thereof  the  I'ostmaster  tieM(M-al  has  made  an  order  suspending  you  from 
the  office  of  postmaster  at  Augusta,  Georgia,  and  designated  George  W.  Sununers  as  special 
agent  of  tiiis  department,  to  take  cliarge  of  the  aforesaid  post  office  and  all  the  public  prop- 
erty thereat. 

You  are,  therefore,  required  to  deliver  to  said  George  W.  Summers  the  mail  key  and  all 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  711 

the  public  property  in  j-our  possession,  upon  the  exliibition  of  his  conunission  and  demand 
tor  the  mail  key  and  property  aforesaid ;   take  from  him  duplicate  receipts   for  the  same; 
retain  one  and  forward  the  other  to  this  department. 
Very  respectfully,  yours,  »fcc., 

ST.  JOHN  B.  I..  SKINNER, 
First  Assistant  Pustmaster  Central. 
Foster  Blodoett,  Esq.,  Augusta,  Georgia. 

Post  Office  Department, 

IVushinglon,  April  17,  1868. 

This  is  to  cerUfy  that  the  foregoing,  marked  D,  is  a  true  copy  of  a  letter  on  record  in  this 
department. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  mj' hand  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Post  Office 
Department  to  be  aflixed  at  the  General  Post  Office,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of 
Columbia,  the  day  and  the  year  first  above  mentioned. 

[L.  s.l  ALEX.  W  RANDALL,  Postmaster  General. 

Cvoss-examinQd  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Is  the  post  office  iu  Augusta  one  that  is  within  the  appointment  of  the 
President  under  the  law  ? 

A.  It  is. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Blodgett  appointed  by  the  President  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.   When? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you  that. 

Q.  Some  time  ago  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  some  time  ago  ;  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate. 

Q.  Under  what  law  did  you,  as  Postmaster  General,  suspend  him  1 

A.  Under  the  law  of  necessity. 

Q.  Any  other  ? 

A.  Under  the  law  authorizing  me  to  put  special  agents  in  charge  of  offices 
.where  I   was  satisfied   that  injustice  was   being  done   by  the  postmaster,  and 
under  the  practice  of  the  department. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  now  as  to  the  law.  We  will  come  to  the  practice  by  and 
by.     Cannot  you  tell  us  whereabouts  that  law  will  be  found  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  without  referring  to  my  notes. 

Q.  Well,  sir,  refer  to  your  notes.  Of  course  I  do  not  mean  that  unwritten 
law — the  law  of  necessity  ? 

A.  No.  It  was  a  question  whether  I  would  close  up  the  office,  or  appoint  a 
special  agent.  [Holding  a  letter  in  his  hand.]  I  have  there,  in  a  letter  I 
wrote 

Q.  I  do  not  care  about  your  letters.  I  am  asking  you  to  refer  me  to  the  law 
under  which  you  did  it,  if  you  can  1 

A.  I  can  make  no  further  reference  than  I  did  to  that  law,  except  my 
authority  to  appoint  special  agents. 

Q.   What  statute  did  you  do  this  under? 

A.  Appoint  the  special  agent  ? 

Q.  What  statute  did  you  do  this  act  under?  What  statute  do  you  justify 
yourself  by  ? 

A.  I  do  not  justify  myself  under  any  particular  statute. 

Q.   What  general  statute  ? 

A.  No  general  statute. 

Q.  Then  under  no  statute  whatever,  either  particular  or  general,  do  you  jus- 
tify yourself-  Now,  sir,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  this  took  place  on  the  3d  of 
January  ? 

A.  The  fore  part  of  January. 

Q.  The  paper  is  dated  the  3d. 

A.  The  fore  part  of  January. 

Mr,  Johnson.  What  is  the  date  of  the  paper,  Mr.  Manager  ? 


712  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr,  Manager  Butler.  They  are  all  dated  the  3d  of  January,  1868.     (To 
the  witness.)     Now,  sir,  have  you  ever  communicated  this  case  to  the  President  ? 

A.  I  di.i. 

Q.  When? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect ;  some  time  after  it  was  done. 

Q.  About  how  long  1 

A.  Perhaps  a  week. 

Q.  More? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  about  that ;  a  few  days  afterwards. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  advice  of  the  President,  or  consent,  or  order,  before  you 
made  this  removal  ? 

A.   I  did  not. 

t^.  Was  the  verbal  complaint  the  same  or  different  from  the  written  complaint 
against  Foster  Blodgett  ? 

A.  It  was  the  same.     It  was  the  statement  that  he  had-  been  indicted  by  the 
district  attorney. 

(^    The  statement  that  he  had  been  indicted  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  was  there  any  other  complaint  ? 

A.  And  a  copy  of  the  indictment. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  complaint  than  that  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  now  whether  there  was  any  other  or  not. 

Q.  Who  made  the  complaint  to  you  ? 

A.  The  district  attorney  of  that  district  stated  to  me  the  fact  that  an  indict- 
ment had  been  found  against  him. 

Q.  Did  he  state  it  to  you  in  person  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  to  forward  you  a  copy  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,.  Did  he  do  so  ? 

A.  He  did,  or  somebody  did. 

Q.  Somebody  did.     Do  you  know  who  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell,  unless  he  did. 

Q.  Did  yon  prepare  these  papers  here  ? 

A.  I  ordered  them  to  be  prepared. 

Q.  You  ordered  all  the  papers  to  be  prepared  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Why  is  not  a  copy  of  the  indictment  here,  then  ? 

A.  It  was  not  inquired  for,  and  I  did  not  think  of  it. 

Q,.   If  it  was  not  inquired  for,  w^ho  made  the  inquiry  for  the  papers  ? 

A.  One  of  the  attorneys  asked  me  about  the  case. 

Q.  One  of  the  counsel  asked' you  about  the  case,  the  papers  I  am  talking 
about  now  ? 

A.  He  asked  me  what  was  the  conditi<m  of  the  case,  what  tlie  testimony  of 
Mr.  Blodgett  meant,  and  I  told  him,  and  told  him  I  could  famish  all  the  orders 
that  were  made  in  the  case  ;  and  I  did  so. 

Q.  Then  you  volunteered  to  furnish  him  the  orders  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  furnish  us  a  copy  of  the  indictment  1 

A.  I  cannot  tell  about  that.  I  did  not  think  anything  about  it.  I  would  have 
furnished  it  to  you  if  you  had  asked  me  for  it.    Yo\i  did  not  ask  me  for  any  copies. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  had  you  any  other  complaint  against  Foster  Blodgett  except 
the  fact  that  he  was  indicted  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  any  now. 

Q.  Have  you  any  inclination  of  your  mind,  anything  in  your  mind,  in  any 
way,  of  anything  else  brought  against  him? 


f  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  713 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you  now.  I  do  not  remember  anything  eLse.  There  may 
be  pomething  in  the  papers. 

Q.  Have  you  any  remembrance  of  acting  upon  any  otlier,  which  you  have 
forgotten  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  anything  now.  The  papers  arc  quite  voluminous,  and 
there  may  be  something  else  in  them.     I  do  not  remember  now. 

Q.  Did  you  act  upon  any  other  than  this  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  was  not  that  an  indictment  brought  by  the  grand  jury  of  that 
county  against  him  for  taking  the  test-oath  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  for  anything  else  except  that  he  was  supposed  to  have  sworn 
falsely  when  he  swore  the  test-oath  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  It  was  taking  the  test-oath  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States  that  he  had 
not  been  in  the  rebellion? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  removed  him  for  that  ] 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  did  not  remove  him. 

Q.  You  suspended  him  for  that  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  give  him  any  notice  of  the  suspension  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  That  you  were  going  to  do  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  that  I  was  going  to  do  it.  I  sent  him  the  notice  you  see 
there,  or  directed  it  to  be  sent. 

Q.  You  sent  a  notice  suspending  him  ? 

A.  I  directed  notice  to  be  sent  to  him  that  he  was  suspended,  a  copy  of 
which  is  in  the  papers. 

Q.  That  was  the  order  of  suspension  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  give  him  any  means  of  defending  himself,  or  showing  Avhat 
had  happened  to  him,  or  how  it  came  on  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  suspended  him  at  once  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Is  there  any  complaint  on  your  books  that  he  had  not  properly  adminis- 
tered this  office  ?  .  ; 

A.  I  do  not  remember  any. 

Q.  Certainly  none  upon  which  you  acted  ] 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  And  a  competent  officer,  acting  properly,  because  somebody  found  an 
indictment  against  him  for  taking  the  test-oath,  swearing  he  was  a  Union  man, 
you  suspended,  without  any  hearing  or  trial  at  all  ? 

A.  I  do  not  swear  to  any  such  statement  as  that.  Part  of  it  is  incorrect.  If 
you  will  ask  me  to  state  what  there  is  about  this  case,  I  shall  be  glad  to  do  it. 

Q.  I  will  ask  this  question,  and  you  will  answer  it 

A.  The  Witness.  Ask  your  questions  and  I  will  answer  them. 

Q.  I  will  put  this  question  :  Did  you  not  suspend  this  officer,  without  inves- 
tigation or  trial,  upon  the  simple  fact  of  an  indictment  being  found  against  him 
for  having  taken  the  test-oath  to  qualify  him  for  that  office,  against  whom  no 
other  complaint  stood  in  your  office  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  any  other  complaint  now,  as  I  have  stated  before. 

Q.  And  therefore,  if  you  answer  upon  what  you  know,  you  Avill  have  to 
answer  yes  ;  you  did  suspend  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  I  did  suspend  him;  and  if  he  had  been  convicted  I  should  have  asked 
to  have  him  removed. 


714  IMPEACHMEXT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  ^ 

Q.  This  case  has  been  pending  since  the  3d  of  January  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  it  ever  been  communicated  by  the  President  to  the  Senate  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Did  he  direct  you  so  to  do  ? 

A.   No,  sir, 

Q.  Did  you  suspend  him  under  the  civil-tenure  act? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  took  no  notice  of  that  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  took  notice  of  it.  That  was  the  difficulty  in  the  case,  if  you 
will  allow  me. 

Q.   You  took  no  notice  of  it  to  act  under  it  ? 

A.   I  could  not  act  under  it. 

Q.  How  many  hundreds  of  men  have  you  appointed  who  could  not  take  the 
test-oath  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  of  any — none  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  there  are  men  appointed  to  office  who  have  not 
taken  the  test-oath  ] 

The  Witness.  As  postmasters? 

Mr  Manager  Butler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  know  of  one — never  one  with  my  consent. 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  is  your  last  answer  1 

The  Witness.  I  say  there  never  has  been  such  an  appointment  with  my 
consent. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Did  you  learn  who  were  the  prosecutors  under  this  indictment  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  did  not. 

Q,  Did  you  inquire  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Whether  they  were  rebels  or  Union  men  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  not  ask  whether  it  was  a  prosecution  by  rebels  down  there  against 
Mr.  Blodgett? 

A.  No,  sir ;  that  was  not  my  business.  I  simply  inquired  as  to  the  fact  of 
Lis  being  indicted  for  perjury  in  taking  the  oath  of  office. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  furnish  me  with  a  copy 
of  that  indictment,  duly  certified  1 

The  Witness.  I  will  do  so,  certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  And  of  any  other  complaint  you  can  find  against 
Foster  Blodgett  before  this  trial  commenced  ] 

The  AViTNESS.  I  will  do  so. 

Mr.  Curtis.  We  should  prefer  to  have  it  furnished  to  the  court,  and  it  can 
be  directed  to  be  put  into  the  case.     I  suppose  that  will  answer  the  purpose. 

j\Ir.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  know  that  until  I  see  it.  If  you  had  wanted 
it  very  much  you  could  have  had  it. 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  was  a  mere  inadvertence. 

The  Witness.  I  presume  they  did  not  think  of  it,  for  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Curtis.   It  was  a  mere  inadvertence  that  it  was  not  produced. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Perhaps. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  wish  it  now  produced.  (To  the  witness.)  AVill  you  furnish 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  a  copy  of  that  indictment  1 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Furnishing  it  to  the  Secretary  without  my  seeing  it 
will  not  put  it  into  the  case.  If  you  desire  it  to  be  furnished  to  him,  very  well; 
but  I  object  to  anything  b(;ing  put  on  the  files  without  my  seeing  it;  and  I  shall 
want  the  witness  after  that. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  715 

Mr.  EvARTS.  If  it  is  objected  to  as  evidence,  ]»erliaps  it  is  not  worth  while 
to  produce  it.     The  only  object  of  having  it  here  is  as  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butleh.  I  cannot  tell  whether  I  shall  object  to  it  or  not  until 
I  see  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  That  will  be  a  private  matter,  then,  between  you  and  Governor 
Randall. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  We  shall  want  the  Postmaster  General  with  it.  I 
shall  want  to  ask  him  some  more  questions  after  I  get  it. 

Mr.  EvART.s*.  You  can  do  so. 

The  Witness.  There  is  another  similar  case  in  which  I  suspended  a  man 
last  week 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Never  mind  about  the  other  case.  I  do  not  care  about 
what  you  have  done  since. 

The  Witness.  I  thought  you  might  want  that. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

I  understand  your  judgment  as  Postmaster  General  was  that  this  suspension 
should  be  made  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  It  occurred  not  during  a  recess  of  the  Senate  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  was  during  the  session  of  the  Senate. 

Q.  So  that  it  was  not  under  the  civil-tenure  act? 

A.  Not  as  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  Evarts.  It  would  not  be  a  suspension  under  the  civil-tenure  act. 

]\Ir.  Manager  Williams.  It  was  during  the  recess. 

Mr,  Evarts.  It  was  not  in  the  recess,  and  the  civil-tenure  act  does  not  apply 
to  the  case.  (To  the  witness.)  Now,  sir,  this  oath,  for  perjury  in  taking  which 
he  was  indicted,  as  you  Avere  informed  by  the  indictment,  was  in  taking  the  oath 
to  this  office  that  he  held  1 

A.   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  object  to  what  was  done  as  to  the  indictment  until 
that  can  be  produced. 

Mr.  Evarts.  I  said  as  you  stated.  You  asked  him  the  question  whether  the 
indictment  was  not  for  taking  a  false  oath.  I  ask  him  if  that  false  oath  was  not 
in  qualifying  for  this  office  which  he  held  1 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  And  in  which  you  suspended  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  what  I  understand. 

Mr,  Evarts.  That  is  all,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  all  until  you  bring  the  indictment. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  desire  to  submit,  if  the  Senate  think  the  question  admissi- 
ble, this  question  to  this  witness,  or  any  other  member  of  the  cabinet  that  may 
be  called'.  It  may  be  contravened  by  the  decision  already  made,  and  I  should 
like  to  have  the  question  decided  by  the  Senate. 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  pi'oposed  by  the 
senator  from  Ohio, 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

State  if,  after  the  2d  of  March,  1867,  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  tcnure-of- office  act, 
the  question  whether  the  Secretaries  appointed  by  President  Lincoln  were  included  within 
the  provisions  of  that  act  came  before  the  cabinet  for  discussion ;  and  if  so,  what  opinion 
was  given  on  this  question  by  members  of  the  cabinet  to  the  President  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  We  desire  to  object  to  that  on  the  ground  of  its  incom- 
petency, and  that  we  deem  it  directly  within  the  ruling  of  the  Senate  twice  or 
three  times  made  this  day. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  The  very  same  question  was  voted  upon. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  The  very  same  question. 


716  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  plioiild  like  to  have  the  question  taken  by  the  Senate  upon 
that  by  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  Howard.  I  raise  a  question  of  order  upon  that  question  of  the  senator, 
that  it  has  been  once  decided  by  the  Senate. 

The  Chikf  Jl'STlCE.  The  Chief  Justice  has  no  doubt  that  the  question  may 
be  properly  put  to  the  witness.  Whether  it  shall  be  answered  is  a  qu(  stion  for 
the  Senate  to  judge. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  I  should  like,  before  that  question  is  put,  to  have  the 
question  which  was  decided  by  the  Senate  to-day,  the  third  question  I  think  it 
is,  read  fi-om  the  minutes.     It  was  an  offer  covering  exactly  the  same  ground. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  offer  will  be  read. 

Mr.  Sherman.  If  the  Senate  will  allow  me,  I  can  tell  in  a  word  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two. 

Mr.  CoNNESS  and  others.  I  object. 

Mr.  CoNKLiNG    Let  us  hear  that  offer  read. 

The  CHtEF  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  offer  to  prove,  the  reading 
of  which  is  requested  by  Mr.  Manager  Butler. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

We  offer  to  prove  that  at  tlie  meetings  of  tlie  caliinet  at  which  Stanton  was  present,  held 
while  the  tenure  of-civil  office  Vjill  was  before  the  President  for  approval,  the  advice  of  the 
cabinet  in  reg-ard  to  the  same  was  asked  by  the  President,  and  given  by  the  cabinet,  and 
thereupon  the  question  whether  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  other  Secretaries  who  had  received  their 
appointments  from  Mr.  Lincoln  were  within  the  restrictions  upon  the  Presideut'.s  power  of 
removal  from  office  created  by  said  act,  was  considered  and  the  opinion  expressed  that  the 
Secretaries  appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  were  not  within  such  restrictions. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  ask  that  the  question  propounded  by  the  senator  from  Ohio 
shall  now  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  question,  as  follows  : 

State  if,  after  the  2d  of  March,  1867,  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  tenure-of-ofBce  act,  the 
question  whether  the  Secretaries  appointed  by  President  Lincoln  were  included  within  the 
provisions  of  that  act  came  before  the  cabinet  for  discussion  ;  and  if  so,  what  opinion  was 
given  on  this  question  by  members  of  the  cabinet  to  the  President? 

Mr.FERRy.  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  that  question. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered ;  and  being  taken,   resulted — yeas  20,  nays 
26  ;  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anthony,  Bayard,  Buckalew,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessendcu,  Fowler, 
Grimes,  Hendricks,  Johnson,  McCreery,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Saulsbury,  Sher- 
man, Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Vickers,  and  Willey — 20. 

Nav.s — Mes.srs.  Cameron,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Couuess,  Corbett,  Cragin, 
Edmunds,  Ferry,  Frelinghuyseu,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of  Maine,  Mor- 
rill of  Vermont,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Stewart,  Thayer,  Tipton, 
Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates — 26. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Drake,  Henderson,  Morton,  Norton,  Nye,  Sprague,  Sumner,  and 
Wade— 8. 

So  the  question  was  not  admitted. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chiif  Justice  and  Senators,  the  counsel  for  the  President 
are  now  able  to  state  that  the  evidence  on  his  part  is  now  closed,  as  they  under- 
stand their  duty  in  the  matter.  The  conduct  of  the  proofs,  however,  has  bfeen 
mainly  intrusted  to  Mr.  Stanbery,  both  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  and  for  some 
particular  reasons  in  reference  to  his  previous  knowledge  concerning  the  con- 
duct of  the  controversy  and  the  matters  to  be  given  in  evidence  which  belonged 
to  his  official  familiarity  with  th(Mn.  Mr.  Stanbery's  health,  we  are  sorry  to  say,, 
is  still  such  as  to  have  precluded  anything  like  a  serious  conference  with  them 
since  he  was  taken  ill.  We  submit  it,  therefore,  to  the  Senate  that,  upon  .-jucIi 
consideration,  it  is  possible  some  other  proof  may  need  to  be  offered-  We  do 
not  at  present  expect  that  it  will  be  so. 

i\rr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  1  ask  the  managers  if  they  have  any  proof 
to  offer  to-day  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  717 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Not  till  the  other  sitlc  f^et  tliroua^li. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  move,  then,  that  the  court  adjourn  until  11  o'clock  on  Mon- 
day. 

Mr.  EvARTs,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  we  have  made  this  announcement.  We 
suppose  ourselves  to  be  through.  I  have  only  stated  that  in  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Stanbeiy,  it  may  be  possible  that  some  further  evidence  may  need  to  be  offered, 
which  we  do  not  at  all  expect. 

Mr.  Manager  Butleii.  When  you  are  entirely  through  we  will  commence. 

The  Chief  Ju.stice  The  senator  from  Maryland  moves  that  the  Senate, 
sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  adjourn  until  Monday  at  11  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Senate,  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeach- 
ment, adjourned. 


Monday,  Ajnil  20,  1SC8. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  took  the  chair. 

The  usual  proclamation  having  been  made  by  the  Sergeantat-arms, 

The  managers  of  the  Impeachment  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  counsel  for  the  respondent,  except  Mr.  Stanbery,  appeared  and 
took  the  seats  assigned  to  them  respectively. 

The  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  pn^ceded  by  Mr.  E.  B.  Washburue,  chairman  of  that  committee,  and 
accompanied  by  the  Speaker  and  Clerk,  appeared  and  were  conducted  to  the 
seats  provided  for  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  journal  of  Saturday's  pro- 
ceedings. 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  read  the  journal  of  the  Senate  sitting  on  Satur- 
day last  for  the  trial  of  the  impeachment ;  but  before  concluding  was  inter- 
rupted by 

Mr.  Stewart.  I  move  that  the  further  reading  of  the  journal  be  dispensed 
with. 

The  Chief  Justice.  If  there  be  no  objection  it  will  be  so  ordered.  The 
Chair  hears  no  objection.  It  is  so  ordered.  Gentlemen  of  counsel  for  the 
President,  do  you  propose  to  put  in  any  further  evidence  1 

Mr.  Curtis.  No,  Mr.  Chief  Justice ;  we  consider  that  we  have  closed  the 
evidence  on  the  part  of  the  defence. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Do  the  honorable  managers  propose  to  put  in  any 
rebutting  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  As  we  are  advised  at  present,  Mr.  President  and 
Senators,  we  may  desire,  in  case  one  or  two  witnesses  subpoenaed  early  in  this 
trial  should  appear,  to  call  tbem.  "I  will  desire,  however,  to  consult  my  asso- 
ciates, two  of  whom  are  absent  and  who  are  expected  within  a  few  minutes  at 
the  table,  in  regard  to  any  furtlier  statement  about  it. 

The  ChIrf  Justice.  In  case  the  honorable  managers  desire  to  put  in  further 
evidence  after  the  adjournment,  it  will  be  necessary  to  obtain  an  order  of  the 
Senate ;  at  least  it  would  be  proper  to  obtain  such  order  before  the  argument 
proceeds. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  suggesting  to  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  Senate  that  I  desire  to  consult  my  associates  further  about  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  So  far  as  the  order  is  concerned,  I  took  it  for  granted 
that  upon  tbe  suggestion  made  at  the  time  the  evidence  was  closed  on  the  part 
of  the  managers  it  would  be  competent  for  us  without  further  order,  if  these  wit- 
nesses should  appear,  to  introduce  them  upon  the  stand,  because  the  Senate  will 
recollect,  although  I  have  not  referred  myself  to  the  journal  of  proceedings  since. 


718  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

it  was  stated  by  my  associate  manager,  Mr.  Batler,  in  the  hearing  of  the  Senate, 
that  we  considered  our  case  closed,  reserving  our  riglit  to  call  rebutting  testi- 
mony or  to  offer  some  documentary  testimony  that  might  have  escaped  our  notice. 
Some  such  statement,  I  believe,  was  entered  upon  the  journal. 

]\rr.  Johnson.  1  am  not  sure  that  I  heard  correctly  the  honorable  manager. 
I  rise  merely  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  whether  the  managers  desire  tu  have 
the  privilege  of  offering  evidence  after  the  argument  begins  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  Not  as  at  present  advised,  although  on  that  subject, 
as  doubtless  is  known  to  honorable  senators,  in  proceedings  of  this  sort,  (though 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  it  has  happened  in  this  country  ;  I  am  not  sure 
but  it  did,  however,  in  the  case  of  Justice  Chase,)  such  orders  liave  been  made 
after  the  final  argument  has  been  opened.  I  am  not  advised,  however,  that  the 
managers  have  any  desire  of  that  sort.  I  wish  it  to  be  understood  simply  by  the 
Senate  that  there  are  one  or  two  witnesses  who  were  deemed  important  on  the 
part  of  the  managers  who  were  early  subpoenaed  to  attend  this  trial,  and  neither 
of  whom  we  have  been  able  yet  to  see,  although  we  are  advised  that  they  have 
been  in  the  capital  for  the  last  48  hours,  or  24  hours  at  least. 

Mr.  Yatks.  I  do  not  still  understand — I  could  not  hear  the  manager — whether 
he  proposes  to  introduce  evidence  after  the  examination  is  closed  and  after. the 
argument  begins. 

Mr.  Manager  Bingham.  As  at  present  advised,  we  have  no  purpose  of  the 
sort.  I  only  made  the  remark  I  did  in  response  to  the  honorable  gentleman 
from  Maryland.  I  do  not  know  what  may  occur  in  the  progress  of  this  trial, 
and  I  do  not  wish  to  be  concluded  by  anjj  statement  I  have  made  here  touching 
the  rights  of  the  people  under  the  usage  and  practice  in  proceedings  of  this 
kind. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  such  practice  in  the  United  States. 

After  a  pause, 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  desire,  Mr.  President,  to  offer  the  Journal  of  Congress 
of  1774-'75,  of  the  first  Congress,  pages  121, 122,  which  is  a  report  of  the  com- 
mittee appointed  to  draught  a  commission  to  the  General,  George  Washington, 
who  had  just  been  theretofore  appointed  : 

Saturday,  June  17,  1775. 

The  committee  appointed  to  clranfi^ht  a  commission  to  tbe  General  reported  the  same,  which, 
being-  read  by  paragraphs  and  debated,  was  agreed  to  as  follows  : 

IN  CONfiRESS. 

The  delegates  of  the  United  Colonies  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts  Bay,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  the  counties  of  New  Castle, 
Kent,  and  Sussex  on  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  South  Carolina, 

To  George  Wasiungton,  P^sq. : 

We,  reposing  special  trust  and  confidence  in  your  patriotism,  valor,  conduct,  and  fidelity ,_ 
do,  by  these  presents,  constitute  and  appoint  you  to.be  General  and  Commander-in-chief  of 
the  army  of  the  United  Colonies,  and  of  all  the  forces  now  raised  or  to  be  raised  by  them, 
and  of  all  others  who  shall  vohintarily  offer  their  service  and  join  the  said  army  for  the 
deffiice  of  American  liberty,  and  for  repelling  every  liostile  invasion  thereof.  And  you  arc 
hereby  vested  with  full  power  and  authority  to  act  as  you  shall  think  tor  the  good  and  wel- 
fare of  the  service. 

And  we  do  hereby  strictly  charge  and  require  all  officers  and  soldiers  imder  your  command 
to  be  obedient  to  your  ordt^s  and  diligent  in  the  exercise  of  their  several  duties. 

And  we  do  also' enjoin  and  veipiire  you  to  be  careful  in  executing  the  good  trust  rejiosed  in 
you,  by  causing  strict  discipline  and  order  to  be  observed  in  the  army,  and  that  the  .soldiers 
be  duly  exercised  and  provided  with  all  convenient  necessaries. 

And  you  are  to  regulate  your  conduct  in  every  resjiect  by  the  rules  and  discipline  of  wars, 
(as  herewith  given  you,)  ;"ind  puiu-tually  to  observe  and  follow  such  orders  and  directions, 
from  time  to  time,  as  you  shall  receive  from  this  or  a  future  Congress  of  these  United  Colo- 
nies orcounnittee  of  Congress. 

This  commission  to  cunlinue  in  force  until  revoked  by  this  or  a  future  Congress. 

15y  order  of  the  Congress. 

The  point  to  which  I  offer  this  is  that  this  is  the  oidy  form  of  commission 
ever  prescribed  by  law  in    this  country  1o  a  luililary  olHocr,  and  in  draughting 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  719 

commissions  nuder  the  Constitution  of  tlic  Uniteil  States  ''the  pleasure  of  the 
President"  was  inserted  instead  of  "  the  pleasure  of  Congress." 

The  Chief  Justick.  Is  there  any  objection  ] 

Mr.  Curtis  and  Mr.  Evarts.  No  objection. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  now  offer,  Mr.  President  and  senators,  a  letter  from 
the  Treasury  Department  in  answer  to  what  has  been  put  in  as  the  practice  of 
the  government  to  appoint  officers  during  the  recess.  [The  letter  was  handed 
to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.]  It  is  one  of  a  series  of  letters  which  were 
not  brought  to  your  attention  in  the  schedules  which  you  allowed  to  come  in. 
Only  so  much  of  the  practice,  as  I  charge,  as  would  make  on  one  side  was  put  in. 

[The  letter  was  returned  to  the  manager.] 

Mr.  Evarts.  The  letter  we  do  not  consider  as  applicable  to  any  point  that  we 
Lave  made,  either  in  argument  or  in  evidence ;  nor  do  we  regard  it  as  an  act  of 
the  Treasury  Department,  but  simply  as  an  expression  of  an  opinion  of  the 
then  existing  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  It  is  simply  an  immaterial  piece  of 
evidence ;  it  is  not  worth  while  to  occupy  time  in  discussing  it, 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  only  ask  whether  you  object  ? 

Mr.  Evarts.   I  have  stated  all  I  have  to  say. 

Mr.  IManager  Butler.  You  do  not. 

Mr.  Evarts.  No.     1  have  stated  what  it  applied  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Very  well.     I  will  read  the  letter  : 

Treasury  Department,  August  23,  1855. 
Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  18th  instant,  recommendiDo:  William  IrvingjCrandall  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  surveyor  of  the  customs  at  Chattauoog'a,  Tennessee,  is  received.  The  otKce  not 
having  been  tilled  before  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate,  it  must  necessarily  remain  vacant 
iintil  its  next  session,  when  your  recommendation  of  Mr.  Crandall  will  receive  respectful  con- 
sideration. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be;  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  GUTHRIE, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Hon.  J.  H.  Smith,  Charleston,  South  Carolina. 

After  a  pause, 

Mr.  ^Manager  Butler.  If  the  President  will  grant  me  a  moment.  Mr.  Randall 
did  not  bring  the  papers  which  I  called  for  to  me  until  since  we  have  come  into 
the  Senate,  and  I  want  to  examine  them  to  see  what  I  will  and  what  I  will  not 
offer.  [After  an  examination  of  the  papers.]  Mr.  Randall,  you  will  take  the 
stand. 

Alexander  "W.  Randall  examined. 

By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Question.  Had  youauy  copy  of  the  indictment  against  Foster  Blodgett  on  file 
in  your  office  1 

Answer.  What  purported  to  be. 

Q.^  When  was  it  made  1 

A.  That  I  cannot  tell  you ;  I  suppose  aliout  the  time  the  original  copy  was 
filed  there. 

Q.  Have  you  produced  it  here  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

A.   It  is  in  the  office. 

Q.  Have  you  produced  copies  here  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  there  is  a  copy  there  before  you. 

Q.  A  copy  from  where  ? 

A.  From  the  Treasury  Department. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  produce  the  copy  from  your  office,  as  I  asked  yon  ? 

A.  Because  that  would  not  prove  anything ;  I  could  not  certify  that  it  was  a 
copy  without  having  the  original. 


720  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.   ' 

Q.  Have  you  produced  the  original  ? 

A.  I  understand  it  is  here.  The  reason  I  did  not  produce  it  was,  I  under- 
stood it  was  here. 

Q.  AVherel 

A.  Before  some  committee.  It  was  sent  up  here  with  the  case.  The  letter 
of  Mr.  McCulloch  there  explains  that. 

Q.  The  letter  of  Mr.  McCulloch  explains  about  Mr.  Hopkins's  case,  which  I 
do  not  mean  to  put  in;  but  I  mean  now  to  deal  with  Mr.  Blodgett's  case. 

A.  You  will  find  the  copy  of  two  indictments  fastened  together  in  the  origi- 
nal as  they  are  there,  and  I  understand  they  are  here.  That  is  the  reason  1 
did  not  bring  that,  for  I  could  not,  without  the  original,  certify  that   it  was  a 

Q.  And  you  got  a  copy  from  the  Treasury  Department  this  morning  : 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Which  you  produce  here,  but  do  not  from  your  own  office  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  produce  that  because  I  could  not  certify  without  having 
the  original  that  it  was  a  true  copy ;  and,  understanding  the  others  were  heie  in  the 
Senate,  I  did  not  bring  it. 

Q.  But  you  brought  this  copy? 

A.  I  had  forgotten  how  the  case  came  here. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  counsel  for  the  respondent.)  Gentlemen,  I  will 
detach  these,  or  only  put  in  one  paper,  just  as  you  please. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Of  course,  we  understand. 

Mr.  Manager  Bltler.  I  do  not  care  to  go  through  detaching  the  copy  in  this 
one  case. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  is  Mr.  Blodgett's  indictment? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Yes,  sir.  I  now  offer  simply  the  indictment  in  Blod- 
gett's case,  which  I  will  read,  without  detaching  it  from  the  other  paper : 

United  States  of  America,  southern  district  of  Georgia.     District  court  of  the  United  States 
for  ihe  southern  district  of  Georgia. 

November  Term,  1867,  A.  D. 

The  grand  jurors  of  the  United  States,  chosen,  selected,  and  sworn,  in  and  for  thf  southern 
district  of  Georgia,  being  good  and  lawful  men  of  the  said  southern  district  of  Georgia,  and 
being  charged  to  inquire  for  the  United  States  and  for  the  body  of  the  said  district,  upon  their 
oaths. 

Present:  that  heretofore,  that  is  to  say,  on  the  27th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1866,  one  Foster  Blodgett,  of  the  city  of  Augusta  and  county  of  Kichuiond,  in  the  State  of 
Georgia,  and  in  the  southern  district  of  Georgia  aforesaid,  was  appointed  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  the  office  of  deputy  postmaster  at  Augusta  aforesaid,  the  said  office, 
that  is  to  say,  the  office  of  deputy  postmaster,  being  an  ottice  of  profit  under  the  government 
of  the  United  States  aforesaid,  in  the  civil  department  of  the  public  service,  and  that  after 
said  appointment  and  before  entering  upon  the  duties  of  the  said  office,  and  bi'tore  he,  the 
said  Fo.'^ter  Blodgett,  was  entitled  to  any  salary  or  other  emoluments  arising  from  the  said 
office,  to  wit,  the  office  of  deputy  postmaster  aforesaid,  he,  the  said  Foster  l>lodgett,  was  then 
and  there  required  by  law  to  take  and  subscribe  the  oath  hereinafter  set  forth,  the  said  oath 
being  by  law  made  material  and  necessary  to  be  taken  and  subscribed  by  him,  tlis  said 
Foster  Blodgett,  before  entering  upon  the  duties  of  the  office  aforesaid,  to  wit,  the  office  of 
deputy  postmaster  at  Augusta  aforesaid;  and  being  so  required  by  law,  he,  the  said  Foster 
Blodgett,  came  in  his  ctwn  proper  i)eis()n  before  David  S.  Koath,  a  judge  of  the  court  of 
ordinary  for  the  county  of  liichmoiid,  in  the  State  of  Georgia  and  within  the  district  afore- 
said, and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  court,  on  the  5th  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1866,  at  Augusta  aforesaid,  within  the  county,  State,  and  district  aforesaid,  and 
then  and  there  was  duly  sworn  and  touk  his  corpural  oath  before  the  said  David  S.  Koath,  a 
judge  of  the  coiu't  of  ordinary  for  the  county  uf  Kichmund,  in  the  State  of  Georgia  and  district 
'aforesaid,  he,  the  said  David  S.  Koath,  i)eing  then  and  there  duly  authorized  by  law,  and 
having  then  and  there  suilicient  and  comi)etent  power  to  administer  the  said  oath  to  the  said 
Foster  Ulodgett  in  that  behalf,  and  that  thereupi>n  tho  said  Foster  Blodgett  having  so  sworn 
as  aforesaid,  and  not  having  (he  fear  of  (iod  belure  his  eyes,  but  having  been  moved  and 
seduced  Ijy  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  then  and  there,  to  wit,  on  the  day  and  year  aforesaid 
and  at  the  place  last  aforesaid,  before  the  said  David  S.  Koath,  judge  of  the  court  i>f  ordinary 
as  aforesaid,  (he,  the  said  Koath,  having  then  and  there  competent  authority  to  lulminister  the 
said  eath  as  aforesaid,)  iqion  ids  oath  aforesaid,  sworu  to  before  the  said  David  S.  Koath,  ou 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  721 

the  fSth  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  18(1(1,  falsely,  wilfully,  and  corruiitly  did 
swear  to  the  piu-poit  and  eifcet  following  ;  tiiat  is  to  .say: 

"I,  Foster  Hlodi^ctt,  (uieanino^  the  said  Foster  Blodgett, )  beinj^  appointed  deputy  post- 
master at  Aug'usta,  in  the  county  of  Kichinond,  and  State  of  tieorgia,  do  swear  that  I  will 
faithfully  perform  all  the  duiies  re([uirc'd  of  me,  and  atistaiu  from  anythini';'  forliidden  by  the 
laws  in  relation  to  the  establishment  of  the  post  othee  and  post  roads  in  the  United  States; 
and  that  I  will  honestly  and  truly  account  for  and  pay  over  any  mone-ys  belonging  to  the 
said  United  States  which  may  come  into  my  possession  or  control ;  and  I  do  further  solemidy 
swear  that  I  have  never  voluntarily  borne  arms  against  the  United  States  since  I  have  been 
a  citizen  thereof;  that  I  have  voluntarily  given  no  aid,  countenance,  counsel,  or  encourage- 
ment to  persons  engaged  in  armed  hostility  thereto;  that  I  have  neither  sought  nor  accepted 
nor  attempted  to  exercise  the  functions  of  any  oltice  whatever,  under  any  authority  or  pre- 
tended authority,  in  hostility  to  the  United  States;  that  I  have  not  yielded  a  voluiitar}'  sup- 
port to  any  pretended  government,  authority,  power,  or  constitution  withiu  the  United  States 
hostile  or  inimical  thereto ;  and  I  do  further  swear  that  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and 
ability  I  will  support  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  against  all  enemies, 
foreign  and  domestic;  that  I  will  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  same;  that  I  take  this 
obligation  freely,  without  any  mental  reservation  or  purpose  of  evasion  ;  and  that  I  will  well 
and  faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of  the  oftice  on  which  I  am  about  to  enter,  so  help  me  God." 

Whereas  in  truth  and  in  fact  the  said  Foster  Blodgett  before  the  time  of  taking  the  said 
oath  as  aforesaid,  had  voluntarily  borne  arms  against  the  United  States  aforesaid,  lie,  the 
said  Foster  Blodgett,  having  been  at  that  time,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  time  when  he  bore  arms 
as  aforesaid,  a  citizen  ot  the  United  States  aforesaid  ;  and  whereas  in  truth  and  in  fact,  he, 
the  said  Foster  Blodgett,  being  a  citizen  as  aforesaid,  before  that  time,  that  is  to  say,  before  the 
time  of  the  taking  of  the  oath,  voluntarily  had  given  aid  to  persons  engaged  in  armed  hos- 
tility to  the  United  States  aforesaid,  and  had  voluntarily  as  aforesaid  given  countenance, 
counsel,  and  encouragement  to  persons  engaged  in  armed  hostility  to  the  United  States 
aforesaid ;  and  whereas  in  truth  and  in  fact,  he,  the  said  Foster  Blodgett,  being  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  as  aforesaid,  had  before  that  time,  that  is  to  say,  before  the  time  of  the 
taking  of  the  said  oath  as  afoi'esaid,  accepted  an  office,  to  wit,  the  office  of  the  captaincy  of 
an  artillery  company  in  the  service  of  and  under  the  authority  of  the  so-called  confederate 
States,  the  so-called  Confederate  States  being  then  and  there  an  authority  or  a  pretended 
authority  in  hostility  to  the  United  States  aforesaid ;  and  whereas  in  truth  and  in  tact,  he, 
the  said  Foster  Blodgett,  being  a  citizen  as  aforesaid,  had  before  that  time,  that  is  to  say, 
before  the  time  of  the  takiug  of  the  said  oath,  yielded  a  voluntary  support  to  a  pretended 
government  of  Georgia,  the  same  being  at  that  time,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  time  he,  said  Fos- 
ter Blodgett,  yielded  a  voluntary  support  thereto,  a  pretended  authority  in  power  within  the 
United  States  and  hostile  thereto.  And  so  the  jiuors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oaths  aforesaid, 
do  say  that  the  said  Foster  Blodgett,  by  his  oath  aforesaid  taken  and  subscribed  on  the  day 
and  year  aforesaid,  by  David  S.  Roath,  a  judge  of  the  court  of  ordinary  as  aforesaid,  falsely, 
wilfully,  and  corruptly,  in  manner  and  form  aforesaid  did,  in  the  southern  district  of  (ieorgia, 
and  withiu  the  jurisdiction  of  this  court,  commit  wilful  and  corrupt,  perjury,  contrary  to 
the  forms  of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  and  against  the  peace  and  dignity 
of  the  United  States. 

HENRY  S.  FITCH, 
United  States  Attorney  for  Georgia. 

[Indorsement.] 

United  States  of  America,  southern  district  of  Georgia,  United  States  district  court,  Novem- 
ber term,  1867. 

United  States     ) 

vs.  >  Indictment  for  perjury. 

Foster  Blodgett.  ) 

Witnesses:  James  A.  Bennett,  Ambrose  R.  Wright,  Dr.  M.  J.  Jones,  John  N.  W^ray, 
Avera  D'Antiquac,  George  W^.  Vennnrey,  Allen  Phillips,  John  L.  Ellis. 
A  true  bill : 

HENRY  BINGHAM,  Foreman. 

Savannah,  JNovember  27,  1867. 
Filed  November  29,  1867. 

JAMES  Mcpherson,  cicrk. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Does  it  charge  that  he  was  a  captaiu  in  the  rebel  service? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  He  was  charged  with  being  a  captain  in  a  vohinteer 
company.     (To  the  witness.)     Now,  Mr.  Randall,  upon  notice  which  you  have 
put  in  as  given  to  Mr.  Blodgett  being  sent  to  him,  did  he  return  an  answer,  and 
is  this  paper  that  answer  or  a  copy  of  it  ?    (Handing  a  paper  to  the  witness.) 
4C  I  P 


722  IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

A.  These  are  copies  of  the  papers  that  are  on  file.  I  can  only  swear  to  them 
as  copies  of  papers  on  file.     I  believe  these  are  correct  copies. 

Q.  And  that  is  a  copy  of  his  answer  ?     Will  you  look  at  it  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  have  read  it  all  over ;  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  The  notice  left  here  on  the  3d  of  January,  we  have  learned  by  the  paper 
which  was  put  in  on  Saturday  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  the  3d  of  January. 

Q.  And  on  the  10th  he  returned  this  answer  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  propose  to  offer  it.     It  is  : 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  10,  1863. 
Hon.  A.  W.  Randall  : 
Sir 

Mr.  EvARTS.  One  moment,  Mr.  Manager.  "We  suppose  that  there  is  no 
inquiry  before  this  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment  as  to  the  truth  of 
the  charges  against  Mr.  Blodgett,  nor  as  to  his  defences.  We  put  in  evidence 
nothing  hut  the  official  action  of  the  government  through  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment, and  that  only  in  answer  to  an  oral  statement  concerning  it  which  Mr. 
Blodgett  had  himself  given.  Now,  the  manager  brings  in  the  indictment,  and 
having  got  that  in,  claims  the  right  to  repel  it  and  thus  produce  evidence  on  both 
sides  of  the  question  of  the  reason  of  Mr.  Blodgett'a  suspension.  We  submit 
to  the  Senate  that  the  proof  is  irrelevant. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  the  case  stands  thus  :  Mr.  Foster  Blod- 
gett, who  is  mayor  of  the  city  of  Augusta,  appointed  by  General  Pope,  and  a 
member  of  the  constitutional  convention 

Mr.  EvARTS.  No  part  of  that  statement  is  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  propose  to  put  it  in  evidence,  and  am  stating  my 
case.  I  have  got  it  all  here.  He  was  a  member  of  the  constitutional  conven- 
tion and  an  active  Union  man 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorable  manager  will  please  reduce  his  offer  to 
prove  to  v/riting. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  will  after  I  state  the  grounds  of  it.     I  will  put 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  it  ought  to  he  reduced  to 
writing  now,  in  order  that  the  Senate  may  pass  upon  the  question  whether  they 
will  receive  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  They  cannot  until  I  make  the  statement,  sir. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  thinks  that  the  same  rule  which  was 
applied  to  the  counsel  for  the  President  yesterday  ought  to  be  applied  to  the 
honorable  managers  to-day.  The  managers  should  state  in  writing  the  nature 
of  the  evidence  which  they  propose  to  introduce,  and  the  Senate  can  then  pass 
upon  the  question  whether  they  desire  to  h^ar  that  class  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Does  the  manager  propose  to  offer  that  paper  in  evidence  itself? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  T  do. 

Mr.  Johnson.  And  nothing  else? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  propose  to  offer  something  else  besides.  At 
present  I  propose  to  offer  this,  and  it  is  the  first  time  any  counsel  has  been 
thus  stop{)ed.  I  assume,  Mr.  President — I  never  have  assumed  any  differ- 
ent— that  the  same  rule  will  be  applied  to-day  as  yesterday.  I  do  not  want 
to  be  understood  as  asking  anything  ditferent 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorabh;  manager  appears  to  the  Chief  Justice 
to  be  making  a  statement  of  matters  which  are  not  in  proof,  and  of  which  the 
Senate  has  as  yet  heard  nothing.  He  states  that  he  intends  to  put  them  in 
proof.  The  Chief  Justice  therefore  requires  that  the  nature  of  the  evidence 
that  he  proposes  to  put  before  the  Senate  shall  be  reduced  to  writing,  as  haa 
been  done  heretofore.  lie  will  make  the  ordinary  offer  to  prove,  and  then 
the  Senate  will  judge  whether  they  will  receive  the  evidence  or  not. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  126 

Mr.  Manager  BtiTLER.  I  was  trying  to  state  that  this  was  a  part  of  the  record 
produced  by  the  other  side.  It  is  the  first  time,  I  have  a  right  to  say,  that  any 
counsel  has  been  interrupted  in  this  way.     This 

The  Cmt'.F  Ji'STICK.  Does  the  honorable  manager  decline  to  put  his  state- 
ment in  writing? 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr,  I  am  not  declining  to  put  the  statement  in  writing,  sir. 

The  Chiep  Justice.  Then  the  honorable  manager  will  have  the  goodness 
to  put  it  in  writing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.   I  can  do  it,  sir,  by  taking  sufficient  time. 

The  Chiep  Justice.  It  will  be  allowed. 

The  proposition  having  been  reduced  to  writing, 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  This  is  the  offer,  sir  : 

We  offer  to  show  that  Foster  Blodf^ett,  the  mayor  of  Augiista,  Georgia,  appointed  bj  Gen- 
eral Pope,  and  a  member  of  the  constitutional  convention  of  Georo-ia,  being-,  because  of  his 
loyalty,  obnoxious  to  some  portion  of  the  citizens  lately  in  rebellion  against  tlie  United  States, 
by  the  testimony  of  sucli  citizens  an  indictment  was  procured  to  be  found  against  him  ;  that 
said  indictment  being  sent  to  the  Postmaster  General,  he  thereupon,  without  authority  of 
law,  suspended  said  Foster  Blodgett  from  office  indefinitely,  without  any  other  complaint 
against  him  and  without  any  hearing,  and  did  not  send  to  the  Senate  the  report  of  such  sus- 
pension, the  office  being  one  within  the  appointment  of  the  President  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate;  this  to  be  proved  in  part  by  the  answer  of  Blodgett  to  the  Post- 
master General's  notice  of  such  suspension,  being  a  portion  of  the  papers  on  file  in  the  Post 
Oifice  Department,  upon  which  the  action  of  the  Postmaster  General  was  taken,  a  portion 
of  which  have  been  put  in  evidence  by  the  counsel  of  the  President,  and  that  Mr.  Blodgett 
is  shown  by  the  evidence  in  the  record  to  have  always  been  friendly  to  the  United  States  and 
oyal  to  the  government. 

That  is  the  offer.  On  this  we  wish  to  be  heard  at  such  time  as  the  Chair 
will  peimit. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  object  to  the  evidence,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  as 
being  wholly  irrelevant  to  this  case.  The  evidence  concerning  Foster  Blodgett 
was  produced  on  the  part  of  the  managers,  and  on  their  part  was  confined  to  hie 
oral  testimony  that  he  had  received  certain  commissions  under  which  he  held 
the  office  of  postmaster  at  Augusta ;  that  he  had  been  suspended  in  that  office 
by  the  Executive  of  the  United  States  in  some  form  of  its  action,  and  there  was 
a  superadded  negative  conclusion  of  his  that  his  case  had  not  been  sent  to  the 
Senate.  In  taking  up  that  case  the  defence  offered  nothing  but  the  official 
action  of  the  Post  Office  Department,  coupled  with  the  evidence  of  the  head  of 
that  d''partment  that  it  was  his  own  act,  without  previous  knowledge  or  subse- 
quent direction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States.  In  that  official  order, 
thus  a  part  of  the  action  of  the  department,  it  appears  that  the  ground  of  it  was 
an  indictment  against  Mr.  Blodgett.  A  complaint  was  made  that  that  indict- 
ment was  not  produced.  The  managers  having  procured  it,  having  put  it  in 
evidence,  they  now  propose  to  put  in  evidence  his  answer  to  that  indictment  or 
to  the  accusation  made  before  the  Postmaster  G-eneral. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlrr.  I  know  you  do  not  mean  to  misstate — his  answer  to 
the  Postmaster  General's  notice,  not  to  the  indictmtsnt. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  His  answer  to  the  accusation  and  the  evidence  concerning  the 
accusation  as  placed  before  the  Postmaster  General,  I  understood. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Not  an  answer  to  the  indictment. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  An  answer  to  the  indictment  so  far  as  it  was  the  accusation 
before  the  Post  Office  Department.  I  understood  you  to  say  so  ;  that  is,  you 
propose  to  prove  that  he  was  friendly  to  the  United  States,  and  always  had" 
been,  notwithstanding  he  had  been  a  captain  in  the  rebel  troops.  I  understood 
you  to  say  so  ;  and  now  the  honorable  manager  states  that  this  papex*,  which  is 
part  of  his  evidence  to  sustain  Mr.  Blodgett's  loyalty  and  defeat  the  accusation 
against  him,  in  which  INIr.  Blodgett  may  be  entirely  right  for  aught  I  know,  is 
a  letter  written  by  him  ten  days  after  his  suspen.-?ion  ;  and  the  honorable  man- 
ager states  that  that  letter  of  his,  written  to  the  Postmaster  General  ten  days 


70> 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


after  his  suspension,  was  a  part  of  the  papers  upon  which  the  Postmaster  Gen- 
eral acted  in  suspending  him.  How  that  could  be,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it 
is  difficult  for  me  to  see.  He  was  suspended  on  the  3d.  Ten  days  after  he 
wrote  an  answer  to  the  incrimination  ;  and  that  is  one  of  the  papers  on  which 
the  Postmaster  General  suspended  him,  it  is  said. 

The  honorable  court  can  see  that  this  is  not  evidence  introduced  by  us  in  dis- 
paragement of  Foster  Blodgett.  It  is  evidence  introduced  by  us  to  show  the 
action  of  the  Post  Office  Department  in  the  susyiension,  which  suspension  the 
managers  had  put  in  by  oral  testimony  ;  and  under  cover  of  that  the  learned 
manager  first  seeks  to  introduce  the  accusations  against  Blodgett,  and  then  to 
rebut  them.  If  this  evidence  is  rightly  put  in  on  their  part,  we  of  course  can 
meet  it  on  ours ;  and  we  shall  have  an  interesting  excursion  from  the  impeach- 
ment trial  of  the  President  to  the  trial  of  Mr.  Foster  Blodgett  on  the  question 
of  loyalty  ;  and  I  am  instructed  to  say  that  there  is  a  witness  in  the  city  w^ho 
can  testify  that  he  was  a  captain  in  the  rebel  army  ;  and  we  are  ready  to  go  on 
with  that  proof  if  it  is  desired. 

Mr.  Manager  Butueu.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  think  npw  it  will  not 
be  out  of  any  order,  either  of  to-day  or  yesterday  or  the  day  before,  for  me  to 
state  the  grounds  upon  which  I  offer  this  evidence. 

Foster  Blodgett  was  called  here  to  show  that,  holding  an  office  which  required 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  he  had  been  suspended  indefinitely  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  as  he  supposed,  and  as  we  supposed,  on  the  3d 
of  January,  186S,  without  any  fault  on  his  part,  so  far  as  his  official  duties 
were  concerned,  and  without  any  adjudication  or  conviction  of  any  crime,  and 
a  man  placed  in  his  office  as  special  agent  with  the  same  salary  and  a  little 
more;  so  that  it  amounted  to  a  removal  and  putting  a  man  into  the  office  as 
now  appears  by  the  papers  presented.  Mr.  Blodgett  testified  that  up  to  the  day 
be  testified  he  had  not  had  his  case  before  the  Senate ;  he  could  get  no  redress. 
We  thought  that  upon  the  proposition  that  the  President  desired  to  obey  the 
law,  except  that  he  wanted  to  make  a  case  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  it,  this 
was  quite  pertinent  evidence.  He  having  put  forward  broadly  in  his  answer 
that  he  was  exceedingly  desirous  to  obey  the  laws,  the  civil-tenure  act  and  all 
other  laws,  except  that  he  wanted  to  make  a  case  to  test  the  constitutionality  of 
the  ]a.w,  these  facts  are  put  in,  and  these  facts  are  yet  undisputed.  They  called 
Mr.  Postmaster  General  Randall  on  Saturday,  and  he  produced,  and  they  put 
in,  a  letter  of  appointment  of  one  Summers,  special  agent,  with  a  salary  therein 
set  out.  They  also  put  in  a  letter  informing  Mr.  Blodgett  that  he  had  been  sus- 
pended from  office.  That  letter  states  precisely  that  it  was  upon  an  indictment 
for  perjury,  not  setting  out  the  indictment,  so  as  to  leave  us  to  infer  that  Foster 
Blodgett  had  in  some  controversy  between  neighbor  and  neighbor,  or  citizen  and 
citizen,  somewhere  committed  wilful  and  corrupt  perjury,  and  tliat  it  was  so 
heinous  a  case  that  the  Postmaster  General  felt  obliged  instantly  to  suspend 
him;  and  it  was  a  case,  he  said,  where  the  great  law  of  necessity  compelled  him 
to  suspend  him  at  once.  In  order  to  meet  that  we  asked  for  the  indictment. 
We  got  it  at  last  from  the  Treasury  Department,  a  copy  of  it.  The  indictment 
then  makes  certain  statements  against  Mr.  Foster  Blodgett.  Now,  Mr.  Foster 
Blodgett,  instantly  upon  being  notified — this  being  the  3d  of  January,  and  the 
paper,  which  I  shall  show  you,  being  dated  the  10th — seven  days  only,  three 
from  ten  leaves  seven,  not  ten,  Mr.  Counsel,  so  that  inadvertences  can  take  place 
as  well  on  the  one  side  as  the  other 

Mr.  EvARTS.  If  you  consider  it  material,  I  will  retract. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  do  not  consider  it  material  only  as  a  matter  of  cor- 
rectnesH  ;  that  is  all.  As  I  say,  seven  days  afterward,  being  in  Washington, 
he  instantly  answers  and  puts  on  file  his  justification,  that  this  was  all  a  rebel 
plot  and  treason  against  the  United  States  in  fact.  Having  put  that  ou  file, 
that  is  a  part  of  the  case. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  725 

Now,  I  have  not  said  to  tlio  Senate  that  this  paper  was  that  upon  wliich  ^Fr. 
Randall  acted  in  suspending  him,  but  I  do  say  it  is  a  part  of  the  proceedings  in 
the  ease,  and  it  is  a  ^laper  on  which  Rfr.  Randall  acted  in  not  returning  that 
suspension  through  the  President  to  the  Sc^nate.  It  may  be  said  that  Mr.  Ran- 
dall had  no  business  to  return  it  to  the  Senate.  He  had  just  as  much  business 
to  return  it  to  the  Senate  as  he  had  to  suspend  him. 

We  are  answered,  too,  that  they  put  in  only  the  official  act  of  the  depart- 
ment. I  had  the  honor  to  explain  to  the  Senate  some  days  ago  that  I  under- 
stood an  official  act  to  be  that  which  was  made  a  man's  duty  by  law  to  do.  I 
never  understood  that  there  was  any  other  official  act.  I  have  always  under- 
stood that  the  kind  of  acts  which  a  man  does  where  the  law  does  not  require 
him  to  do  them  are  officious  acts,  and  not  official ;  and  I  think  this  was  the 
most  officious  act  I  have  ever  known — one  which  the  Postmaster  General  says 
there  is  no  law  for,  which  was  justified  by  no  statute.  A  man  is  suspended  ; 
his  repudiation  is  ruined  as  far  as  it  cau  be ;  the  tribunal  the  law  has  appointed 
before  which  he  could  have  a  hearing,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  is  not 
informed  of  it  in  the  regular  way.  It  affects  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
because  he  was  informed  of  it  after  it  was  done,  and  he  has  taken  no  action  ; 
and  then  when  we  put  him  on  to  say  to  us,  "  I  have  been  suspended  and  cannot 
go  before  the  Senate,"  the  answer  is  what  1  When  he  simply  says  that,  the 
answer  is  to  put  in  the  fact  that  he  was  indicted  in  order  to  blacken  his  reputa- 
tion and  send  it  out  to  the  country. 

I  never  saw  Foster  Blodgett  until  the  day  he  was  brought  upon  this  stand. 
I  have  no  interest  in  him  any  more  than  any  other  gentleman  of  position  in  the 
south.  [  put  it  to  you,  if  you  had  been  treated  in  that  way  when  here  as  a 
witness  under  the  summons  of  the  Senate  by  the  managers  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  to  testify  to  a  fact,  and  then  the  President,  after  refusing  you 
any  hearing  before  the  constitutional  tribunal  and  legal  tribunal,  had  put  in  the 
fact  to  blacken  your  character  that  you  had  been  indicted,  would  you  not  like 
to  have  the  privilege  of  putting  in  at  least  your  answer  on  record  in  the  case, 
that  which  you  did  instantly  1  It  is  said  to  be  the  letter  of  Mr.  Blodgett. 
True,  it  is ;  but  it  also  contains  exhibits  and  other  papers  which  establish  the 
facts  beyond*  controversy. 

It  is  said  here,  with  a  slur,  that  they  have  got  a  witness  to  prove  that  he  was 
in  the  rebel  army.  I  do  not  doubt  it — plenty  of  them — whether  he  was  or  not. 
But  what  I  say  is,  that  while  he  was  only  a  captain  in  a  militia  company,  and  called 
into  service  and  bound  to  obey  the  powers  tliat  be,  and  he  was  indicted  because 
he  yielded  to  the  power  of  the  State  of  Georgia  to  compel  him  to  hold  the  com- 
mission ;  and  taking  no  commission,  he  had  either  to  go  or  lose  his  life ;  and 
be  could  well  swear,  although  he  went  as  a  militia  captain  into  the  service,  that 
he  did  not  voluntarily  go.  But,  however  that  may  be,  he  has  a  right  to  have 
before  ihe  country  that  he  has  been  traduced — a  man  among  his  neighbors  so 
well  known  that  they  elected  him  to  make  the  constitutional  law  for  them  ;  a 
man  among  his  neighbors  so  well  known  that  General  Pope  appointed  him 
mayor  of  this  very  town  where  he  held  the  office ;  a  man  so  well  known  that 
■when  the  State  of  Georgia  shall  come  here  and  demand  a  place  in  this  chamber 
I  have  no  doubt  Foster  Blodgett  will  come  and  take  his  place  beside  the  proud- 
est of  you. 

I  say  under  these  circumstances  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  put  this  testimony  before 
you;  and  if  the  mere  objection  is  want  of  relevancy  I  put  it  as  a  matter  of 
justice  to  a  witness  that  the  House  of  Representatives  brought  here,  and  who  is 
now  being  oppressed  by  the  entire  power  of  the  executive  government  of  the 
United  States,  who  has  been  confessedly,  without  law,  against  right,  suspended 
from  his  office  and  so  removed,  can  get  no  hearing  before  this  tribunal  or  any 
other,  because  the  President  controls  his  district  attorney  and  he  cannot  get  a 
trial  down  there,  and  they  will  nut  report  him  up  here,  and  he  cannot  get  a  trial 


726  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

here.  It  appeals  to  your  justice.  I  do  not  propose  to  go  into  any  excursion  in 
trying  tiie  case  of  Foster  131odgett.  I  only  propose  to  put  in  all  the  papers  that 
were  on  file  ir  the  Post  Office  Department  about  this  case  that  be.ir  on  my  side 
of  the  case.  They  have  put  in  such  papers  as  bear  on  their  side  of  the  case, 
and  I  propose  to  put  in  such  papers  as  bear  on  my  side  of  the  case  out  of  the 
same  bundle,  that  they  shall  not  pick  out  such  as  please  them  and  have  them 
put  in  without  my  picking  out  and  putting  iu  from  the  same  bundle  such  as 
please  us. 

Mr.  EvART-S.  We  do  not  put  in  anything  from  the  bundle.  We  put  in  merely 
the  action  of  the  department.  You  have  taken  a  paper  from  the  bundle  and 
now  propose  to  put  in  an  answer  to  it.  That  is  now  the  statement  of  the  evi- 
dence. We  have  as  little  to  do  with  and  as  little  care  for  Foster  Blodgett  as 
possible  ;  but  you  brought  him  here  and  compelled  us  to  state  the  circumstances 
of  the  department's  action.  We  have  stated  them.  If  his  case  is  to  be  tried 
by  this  court  because  it  cannot  be  tried  by  any  other,  and  if  that  is  a  ground  of 
jurisdiction,  of  course  you  may  have  plenty  of  work. 

The  Chief  Justice,  The  Secretary  will  read  the  offer  to  prove  made  by  the 
honorable  managers. 

The  chief  clerk  read  : 

We  offer  to  show 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  Stop  a  moment.  Perhaps  I  will  amend  the  offer  a 
little,  though  not  in  substance.  With  leave,  sir,  I  will  withdraw  that  and  take 
one  which  covers  the  same  points,  but  is  much  shorter,  which  has  been  drawn 
up  by  one  of  my  associates. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  offer  to  prove  now  made 
by  the  honorable  managers. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

The  defendant's  counsel  having  produced  from  the  files  of  the  Post  Office  Department  a 
part  of  the  record  showing  the  alleged  causes  for  the  suspension  of  Foster  Blodgett  as  deputy 
postmaster  at  Augusta,  Georgia,  we  now  propose  to  give  in  evidence  the  residue  of  said 
record,  including  the  papers  on  iile  in  the  said  case,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  wliole  of 
the  case  as  the  same  was  presented  to  the  Postmaster  General  before  and  at  the  time  of  the 
suspension  of  the  said  Blodgett. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Our  objection  to  that  offer,  as  we  have  already  stated,  is  that 
it  does  not  present  correctly  the  relation  of  the  papers. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Sen- 
ate. The  original  offer  to  prove  has  been  withdrawn.  The  offer  which  has 
just  been  read  has  been  substituted.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  the 
evidence  now  proposed  to  be  offered  should  be  received  will  say  aye  ;  contrary 
opinion  no.  (Putting  the  question.)  The  noes  have  it.  The  evidence  is  not 
received. 

Mr.  AxTHONV.  I  should  like  to  have  the  yeas  aud  nays  on  that,  if  not  too 
late. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  too  late.  If  there  be  no  objection,  however,  the 
Chief  Justice  will  put  the  question  on  taking  the  yeas  aud  nays.  There  seems 
to  be  no  objection. 

Mr.  Came  ROM.  I  object. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler,  (to  the  witness.)  Mr.  Randall,  I  have  been  informed 
that  you  desire  to  make  some  statement  about  this  removal.  If  it  does  not  put 
in  anything  that  the  President  said  or  anybody  else  I  shall  not  object. 

The  Wii'M'.ss.  I  expressed  to  a  gentleman  this  morning  a  wish  to  explain 
the  circumstances  under  which  I  made  this  suspension.  It  was  one  of  those 
cases  which  there  is  no  provision  of  law  to  meet,  like  several  others  that  we  have, 
and  one  that  I  passed  uj)on  this  last  week.  The  copy  of  this  indict'ueut  was 
brought  to  me,  and  the  district  attorney  at  the  same  time  or  about  the  same  time, 
soon  afterward  at  any  rate,  came  to  me  and  made  statcMuents  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  found.     Under  the  teuure-of-office  law,  if  we  acted  uuder 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  727 

that,  the  Presidont  would  have  no  j)ower,  as  I  understood  it,  to  suspend  any 
officer  during  the  session  of  the  Senate.  Tlie  only  thing  he  could  do  would  be 
to  send  up  the  name  of  some  man  in  his  place,  removing  Mr.  Blodgett.  It 
occurred  to  me  that  this  violation  of  the  law  by  Mv.  Blodgett  might  be  merely 
a  technical  violation  of  the  law.  If  it  was  a  technical  violation  of  the  law — I 
am  telling  now  what  my  reasoning  was  on  the  subject — if  it  was  true  that  he 
was  forced  into  the  rebel  service  and  got  out  of  it  as  soon  as  he  could,  and  this 
violation  of  the  oath  of  office  law  in  taking  that  oath  was  merely  a  technical 
violation  for  which  he  was  indicted,  I  did  not  want  him  turned  out  ;  and  for 
that  reason  I  took  the  responsibility  of  doing  this  thing,  of  making  this  suspen- 
sion and  putting  a  special  agent  in  temporary  charge  of  the  office  until  we  could 
ascertain  more  fully  what  the  facts  were  in  the  case,  and  wliat  action  ought  to 
be  taken.  Those  are  the  circumstances  under  which  this  thing  was  done. 
By  Mr.  Manager  Butler  : 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  report  it  to  the  President  for  his  action  ? 

A.  I  told  the  President  what  I  had  done. 

Q.  When? 

A.  Afterward  ;  as  I  stated  before. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  report  it  before  you  undertook  to  take  the  responsibility  ? 
Did  you  not  suppose  he  would  turn  him  out  ? 

A.  Because  the  only  thing  he  could  do,  if  he  did  anything,  was  to  send  to  the 
Senate  some  other  nomination,  turning  this  man  out. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  if  I  understand  you,  following  the  law,  the  only  thing  he 
could  do  was  to  send  to  the  Senate  the  name  of  somebody  in  place  of  this  man, 
removed ;  and  you  thought,  breaking  the  law,  you  could  do  something  better  1 

A.  I  do  not  put  it  in  any  such  shape  as  that.  I  stated  it  just  exactly  as  it 
occurred.  I  did  not  want  the  man  turned  out  if  this  was  a  mere  technical  vio- 
lation of  the  law  on  which  he  was  indicted,  and  if  he  was  an  honest  man.  That 
was  the  reason  I  was  disposed  to  ascertain  the  facts.  It  may  have  been  a  tech- 
nical violation  of  the  law ;  but  I  assumed  the  doing  of  it  for  the  purpose  of  not 
having  an  act  of  injustice  done  to  him  if  he  was  an  honest  man, 

Q.  Was  the  Senate  in  session  on  the  3d  of  January  last  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you  whether  it  was  iu  session  on  that  day  or  not. 

Q.  Was  there  not  a  recess  ? 

A.  There  may  have  been ;  I  do  not  remember  now. 

Q.  Then  the  reason  that  the  Senate  was  in  session  did  not  apply  to  this  case  1 

A.  I  considered  the  Senate  in  session.  I  do  not  look  upon  a  recess  for  two 
or  three  or  five  days  as  a  recess  of  the  Senate,  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitution, 
I  do  not  remember  whether  the  Senate  was  actually  in  session  on  that  particular 
day. 

Q.  Y(ju  deemed  it  to  be  in  session,  and  you  treated  it  as  if  in  session  1 

A.  I  considered  the  session  as  continuing. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  CoNNESS.  I  should  like  to  ask  a  question  of  the  witness.  I  will  reduce 
it  to  writing. 

The  Witness.  One  suggestion  I  forgot  to  make  which  I  wish  to  mention. 
The  reason  why  something  was  not  further  done  in  the  case  is  that  I  was  trying 
to  get  information  on  this  subject,  and  then  this  trouble  began,  and  this  case  has 
lain  long  without  any  intention  to  delay  it,  and  no  further  action  has  been  had. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  By  trouble  you  mean  the  impeachment,  I  suppose? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  I  had  no  time  to  have  copies  made,  but  I  have 
brought  here  the  original  papers  which  were  filed  at  the  time  he  was  appointed. 
I  did  not  know  whether  you  would  want  them. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  want  to  see  them. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  question  proposed  by  the  senator  from  California 
has  been  submitted  in  writing,  and  will  be  read  by  the  Secretary. 


728  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

The  question  propounded  Ly  Mr.  Conness  was  read,  as  follows  : 

Have  you  ever  takcu  any  step  since  your  act  suspeuding  Foster  Blodgett  in  further  investi- 
gatiou  of  liis  case  ? 

A.  Ye.-?,  sir;  in  trying  to  secure  information.  There  is  considerable  informa- 
tion among  the  papers  here  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  JIanager  Buti^er.  That  is  what  we  offered  to  put  in; 

The  Witness.  Bvyond  what  you  offered  to  put  in. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  only  offered  one  thing  at  a  time.  We  have  no  more 
questions  to  ask  the  witness. 

Mr.  Cl'RTIS.  Nor  we. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  now  offer,  Mr.  President,  an  official  copy  of  the 
order  creating  the  military  department  of  the  Atlantic,  and  putting  General 
Sherman  into  charge  of  it. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  What  does  that  rebut?  I  am  not  aware  that  we  have  given 
any  evidence  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Do  you  object? 

Mr.  Evarts.  We  do,  unless  it  is  relevant  and  rebutting.  I  do  not  recall  any 
evidence  that  we  have  given  concerning  the  department  of  the  Atlantic. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  It  is  put  in  to  shoAv  part  of  the  action  of  the  Presi- 
dent at.  the  same  time,  on  the  same  day  that  he  restored  General  Thomas.  That 
date  was  not  fixed  until  after  General  Thomas  came  on  to  the  stand.  The 
object  is  to  show  what  was  done  militarily  on  that  same  day.  That  is  the  reason 
why  it  is  put  in. 

Mr.  Evarts,  I  do  not  see  any  connection  with  General  Thomas's  testimony. 
The  only  connection  the  honorable  manager  states  is  that  he  learned  from  Gen- 
eral Thomas  when  he  was  restored,  as  if  he  did  not  know  that  before.  It  was 
all  public  when  he  was  restored.  It  does  not  connect  itself  at  all  with  any  evi- 
dence we  have  produced.  If  it  is  put  on  the  ground  that  it  was  forgotten  or 
overlooked,  that  is  another  matter ;  but  to  bring  it  in  as  rebutting  is  a  consider- 
tion  which  we  cannot  consider  well  suggested.  ' 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Mr.  President,  when  I  speak  of  learning  a  thing  in  the 
trial  of  a  cause  I  mean  learning  it  in  the  course  of  the  evidence  during  the  trial, 
not  what  I  know  in  the  coirntry  from  the  newspapers,  because  they  are  not 
always  the  best  sources  of  knowledge.  I  say  that  General  Thomas  testifies 
that  on  the  13th  of  February  the  President  made  an  order  that  he  should  be 
restored  to  his  position  as  Adjutant  General.  That  was  fixed  by  his  testimony  ; 
it  was  not  fixed  before.  That  was  an  order  given  on  the  13th  to  General  Grant, 
which  was  not  published,  a  private  le4;ter  or  order.  Now,  I  want  to  show  that 
on  that  same  day,  or  the  day  before,  this  new  military  division  was  made  here, 
and  (general  Sherman  ordered  to  the  command  of  it,  showing  the  acts  of  the 
President  at  or  about  the  same  time.  The  presiding  officer  has  so  well  told  us 
heretofore  the  competency  of  the  acts  of  a  party  about  the  same  time  as  being  a 
part  of  the  res  gcsfce,  and  the  Senate  has  so  often  allowed  testimony  to  come  in 
to  that  effect,  tliat  I  cannot  conceive  why  this  cannot  be  competent.  It  is  part 
of  the  things  done  by  the  President  on  the  same  day,  or  the  day  before  Thomaa 
was  restored.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  a  word  on  the  question  whether  it  is  rebut- 
ting ;  I  do  not  understand  that  that  rule  belongs  here. 

The  Chief  Justice.  On  the  part  of  the  honorable  managers,  it  is  proposed 
to  give  in  evidence  an  order  establishing  the  department  of  the  Atlantic.  The 
Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Anthonv.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  BucKALKW.  Mr.  President,  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  a  question  submitted 
to  General  Sherman  by  the  counsel  for  the  defence  in  reference  to  this  very 
matter,  if  our  clerk  Avill  turn  to  the  record  he  will  find  that  a  question  was  put 
to  General  Sherman  as  to  the  establishment  of  the  department  of  the  Atlantic, 
which  was  ruled  out. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT, 


729 


The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  question  referred  to. 

Mr.  Manager  Butlek.  We  shall  not  trouble  the  Senate.  This  being  a  mat- 
ter of  public  document,  I  suppose  we  cau  refer  to  it  in  the  argument.  We 
withdraw  the  offer. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  offer  to  prove  made  by  the  honorable  managers 
is  withdrawn. 

Mr.  ]\[anagpr  Butler.  I  have  now,  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  a  list  pre- 
pared as  carefully  as  we  were  able  to  prepare  it  in  the  time  given  us,  from  the 
laws,  of  the  various  officers  in  the  United  States  who  would  be  affected  by  the 
President's  claim  here  of  a  right  to  remove  at  pleasure.  That  is  to  say,  if  he 
can  remove  at  pleasure  and  appoint  ad  interim,  this  is  a  list  of  officers  taken 
from  the  laws,  with  their  salaries,  being  a  correljitive  list  to  that  put  in  by  the 
counsel,  showing  the  number  of  officers  and  tlie  amount  of  salaries  which  would 
be  affected  by  the  President.  In  order  to  bring  it  before  the  Senate  I  will  read 
the  recapitulation  only  thus  : 

In  the  Navy,  War,  State,  Interior,  Post  OfBce,  Attorney  General,  Agriculture,  Education, 
and  Treasury,  the  officers  are  41,5r)3;  the  grand  total  of  their  emoluments  is  $21,1S(J,736  87 
a  year. 

I  propose  that  the  same  course  shall  be  taken  with  this  as  with  the  like 
schedule,  this  being  a  compilation  from  the  laws,  that  it  be  printed  as  part  of 
the  proceedings. 

The  Chief  Justice.  Is  there  auy  objection? 

Mr.  Evarts.  If  it  shows  what  it  is  there  is  no  objection. 

The  document  is  as  follows  : 

Navy  Department,  as  per  Navy  Register  for  1S6S. 


Office. 


Number. 

Annual  pay. 

Total. 

1 

$8,  000  00 

$8,  000  00 

1 

3,  500  00 

3,  500  00 

1 

3,  500  00 

3, 500  00 

1 

10,  000  00 

10,  000  00 

1 

7.  000  00 

7,  000  00 

9* 

5,  000  00 

45,  000  00 

24* 

4,  000  00 

96,  000  00 

49* 

3,  500  00 

171,500  00 

9U* 

2,  800  00 

•  252,  (iOO  00 

i;ifi* 

2,  343  00 

318,  (148  00 

45* 

1,  875  00 

84,  375  00 

29* 

1,  500  00 

43,  500  00 

52* 

1,  200  00 

62,  400  00 

157* 

800  00 

125,  6110  00 

14* 

3,  500  00 

49,  000  00 

:58* 

2,  800  00 

106,400  00 

28* 

2,343  00 

65,301  00 

42* 

1,875  00 

78,  750  00 

28* 

] , 500  00 

42,  000  00 

1* 

4,  000  00 

4,  000  00 

12* 

3,  500  00 

30,  000  00 

.30* 

2,  800  00 

84,  COO  00 

36* 

2,  343  00 

84,  348  00 

39* 

1,875  00 

73,125  00 

26* 

1,500  00 

39,  OUO  CO 

1* 

4,  (100  00 

4,  000  00 

4* 

3,  500  00 

14, 000  00 

34* 

2,800  00 

95, 200  00 

11* 

2,  343  00 

25,  773  00 

88* 

1,  875  00 

165,000  00 

13J* 

1,  500  00 

196,  500  00 

94* 

800  00 

19,200  00 

7* 

2,  800  00 

19,  (iOO  00 

11* 

2,  343  00 

25.  773  00 

4* 

2,  800  00 

11,200  00 

7* 

2,  343  00 

16,401  00 

1,210 

2,  4C4,  594  00 

Secretary 

Assistant  Secretary 

Solicitor  and  Judge  Advocate  General . 

Admiral 

Vice-admiral 

Rear-admiral 

Commodores 

Captaius 

Commanders 

Lieutenant  commanders 

Lieutenants 

Masters 

Ensigns 

Midshipmen 

Surgeons  as  captains 

Surgeons  as  commanders 

Surgeons  as  lieutenant  commanders 

Passed  assistant  surgeons  as  lieutenants 

Assistant  surgeons  as  masters 

Payruaster  as  commodore 

Paymasters  as  captains 

Paymasters  as  commanders - 

Pa j'masters  as  lieutenant  commanders 

Passed  assistant  paymasters  as  lieutenants 

Assistant  paymasters  as  masters ■ 

Cbief  engineer  as  commodore 

Chief  engineers  as  captaini 

Chief  engineers  as  commanders 

Chief  engineers  as  lieutenant  commanders 

First  assistant  engineers  as  lieutenants 

Second  assistant  engineers  as  masters 

Third  assistant  engineers  as  midshipmen  after  graduation 

Chaplains  as  commanders 

Chaplains  as  lieutenant  commanders  

Professors  of  mathematics  as  commanders 

Professors  of  mathematics  as  lieutenant  commanders 

Total 


730  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Navy  Dejyartment,  as  per  Navy  Register  for  186S — Continued. 


Office. 


WARRANT  OFFICERS. 

Boatswains 

Gunners , 

Carpenters  as  gunners 

Sailmakers  as  gunners 


CONSTRUCTORS. 

Naval  constructor  as  commodore , 

Naval  conBtructor  as  captaiu , 

Naval  constructors  as  commanders 

Naval  constructor  as  lieutenant  commander. 
Assistant  naval  constructors  as  masters 


RETIRED  AND  RESERVED  LIST. 

Rear-  admiral 

Commodores 

Captains 

Commanders 

Lieutenant  commanders 

Masters  (not  in  the  line  of  promotion) 

Midshipman 

Surgeons  as  captains 

Surgeons  as  commanders 

Surgeons  as  lieutenant  commanders 

Passed  assistant  surgeons  as  lieutenants 

Assistant  surgeons  as  masters 

Paymasters  as  captains 

Paymaster  as  commander 

Chief  engineer  as  lieutenant  commander 

First  assistant  engineers  as  lieutenants 

Second  assistant  engineers  as  masters 

Chaplains  as  commanders 

Chaplain  as  lieutenant  commander , 

Professor  as  commander 

Professor  as  lieutenant  commander 

Naval  constructor  as  captain 

Boatswains 

Gunners 

Carpenters 

Sailmakers 


MARINE  CORPS. 

Brigadier  general  and  commandant 

Majors,  (staff) 

Captains,  (staff) 

Colonel,  (line) 

Lieutenant  colonels,  (line) 

Majors,  (line) 

Captains,  (line) 

First  lieutenants,  (line) 

Second  lieutenants,  (line) 


Number.  'Annual  pay, 


$1,000  00 
1,  000  00 
1,  000  00 
1 ,  000  00 


$4,  000  00 
3,  ,500  00 
2,  800  UO 
2,  343  00 
1,  500  00 


236 


89 


82,  000  00 

1,  800  00 

1,  600  00 

1,  400  00 

1,  300  00 

t<OU  00 

500  00 

1,  600  00 

1,  400  00 

1, 300  00 

1,  000  00 

800  00 

1,  600  00 

1,  400  00 

1,  300  00 

1,  000  00 

800  00 

1,  400  00 

1,  300  00 

1,  400  00 

1,  300  00 

1,  600  00 

600  00 

600  00 

600  (10 

600  00 


$6,  130  00 

2,  666  00 

1,  776  00 

3,  365  00 
3,015  .50 

2,  666  00 
1,776  00 
1,  616  00 
1, 536  00 


RECAPITULATION— NAVY    DEPARTMENT. 


Office. 

Number. 

Total  annual 

p«y. 

Secretary  of  War,  &c.,  and  active  list 

Warrant  oflicers 

1,210 
174 

11 
236 

89 

$2,  464,  594  00 
174  000  00 

Naval  constructors 

25, 743  00 
346,  000  00 
161,436  00 

lU^tired  and  reserved  list 

Marine  corps .                . 

Total 

1,720 

3,171,773  00 

IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.  731 

Tabular  statement  of  officers  of  the  army  ajipointeil  hy  the  President. 


Rank. 


Secretary  of  War  . 


GENERAL  OFFICERS. 


General 

Lieutcuaiit  General 

Major  generals 

Brigadier  generals. . , 


ADJUTANT  GENERAL'S  DEPARTMENT. 

Adjutant  General — brigadier  general 

Assistant  adjutant  generals — colonels 

Assistant  adjutant  generals — lieutenant  colonels 

Assistant  adjutant  generals — majors 


INSPECTOR  GENERAL'S  DEPARTMENT. 

Colonels 

Lieutenant  colonels 

Majors 


BUREAU  OF  MILITARY  JUSTICE. 

Brigadier  general — Judge  Advocate  General 

Colonel 

Majors 


QUARTERMASTERS'  DEPARTMENT. 

Brigadier  general — Quartermaster  General 

Colonels — assistant  quartermaster  generals 

Lieutenant  colonels — deputy  quartermaster  generals 

Majors — quartermasters 

Captains — assistant  quartermasters 

MUitai'y  storekeepers 


SUBSISTENCE    DEPARTMENT. 

Brigadier  general — Commissary  General  Subsistence 

Colontds — assistant  commissary  generals  subsistence 

Lieutenant  colonels — assistant  commissary  generals  subsistence 

Majors 

Captains    


MEDICAL  DEPARTMENT. 

Brigadier  general — Surgeon  General 

Colonel — assistant  surgeon  general 

Chief  medical  purveyor — lieutenant  colonel 

Assistant  medical  purveyors — lieutenant  colonel 

Surgeons — majors 

Assistant  surgeons — first  lieutenants 

Medical  storekeepers 


PAY  DEPARTMENT. 

Brigadier  general — Paymaster  General 

Colonels 

Lieutenant  colonels 

Majors 


No 

Annual  pay. 

Total 

$8, 000  OO 

1 
1 
5 
10 

1 

4 
13 

4 
3 
3 

1 

1 
9 

1 
6 
10 
15 
44 
10 

1 
o 

2 

8 
16 

1 
1 

1 

4 

60 

450 

4 

1 
60 

$10,632  00 
9,  U72  00 
5,  772  00 
3,  918  00 

3,918  00 
2,724  00 
2,  436  00 
2,  148  00 

■2,  724  00 
2,  430  00 
2, 148  00 

3,918  00 
2,  724  00 

2,  148  00 

3,  918  00 

2,  724  00 
2,  436  00 

2,  148  00 
1,  650  00 

1,  650  00 

3,  918  00 

2,  724  00 
2,  436  00 

2,  148  00 

1,  650  00 

3,  918  00 
2,724  00 

2,  436  00 
2,  436  00 
2,  148  00 
1,  449  96 

1,  650  00 

3,918  00 
2,724  00 

2,  436  00 
2, 148  00 

$10,  632  00 
9,  072  00 
28,  860  00 
39,  180  00 

87,  744  00 

$3,  918  00 
5,  448  00 
9,744  00 

27,924  00 

47,  024  00 

$10,  896  00 
7,  308  00 
6,444  00 

24,  648  00 

$3,  918  00 
2,  724  00 
19,  332  00 

25,974  00 

$3,  918  00 
16,  344  00 
24,  360  00 
32,  220  00 
72,  600  00 
26,  400  00 

175,  842  00 

$3,  918  00 
5,  448  00 
4,  872  00 
17,  i84  00 
26,  400  00 

57,  822  00 

$3,  918  00 
2,  724  00 
2, 436  00 
9,  744  00 
128,  880  00 
217,  494  00 
6,  600  00 

371, 796  00 

$3,  918  00 
5,  448  00 
4, 872  00 

128,880  00 

143, 118  00 

732  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Tahular  statement  of  qfficers  of  the  army  appointed  hy  the  President — Cont'd. 


ENGIKEER  DEPARTMENT. 

Chief  engineer,  (brigadier  general) 

Colonels 

I^ieutenant  colonels 

Majors 

Captains 

Lieutenants 


ORDNANCE  DEPARTMENI. 

Brigadier  general,  (Chief  of  Ordnance) 

Colonels 

Lieutenant  colonels 

Majors : 

Captains 

Lieutenants 

Military  storekeepers 


SIGNAL  CORPS. 
Chief — colonel 

POST  CHAPLAINS. 

Chaplains ; 

REGIMENTAL  OFFICERS— CAVALRY 

Colonels 

Lieutenant  colonels 

Majors 

Captains 

Adjutants 

Quartermasters 

Commissaries 

First  lieutenants 

Second  lieutenants 


ARTILLERY. 

Colonels 

Lieutenant  colonels 

Majors 

Captains , 

Adjutants 

Quartermasters , 

First  lieutenants 

Second  lieutenants , 


INFANTRY. 

Colonels 

Lieutenant  colonels 

Majors 

Captains 

Adjutants 

Quartermasters 

First  lieufeiiantB 

Second  lieutenants 


WEST  POINT. 


ProfeBgors 


30 


Annual  pay. 


$3,918  00 
2,  724  00 
2,  43r;  00 
2,  U8  00 
1,  6.30  00 
1, 449  96 


$3,918  00 
2,  7:.'4  00 
2,436  00 
2,  148  00 
1,  650  00 
1,449  96 
1,  650  00 


$2,724  00 


1,  416  00 


10 

2,724  00 

10 

2,  436  00 

30 

2,  148  00 

120 

1,  fi.50  00 

10 

1,  569  96 

10 

1,  569  96 

10 

1,  569  96 

120 

1, 449  96 

120 

1,449  96 

5 

2,  544  00 

5 

2,  256  00 

15 

2,028  00 

60 

1,530  00 

5 

1,.530  00 

5 

1,  530  00 

120 

1,410  00 

120 

1,  350  00 

45 

2, 544  00 

45 

2,  256  00 

45 

2,  0-'8  (10 

4.">0 

1,530  (K) 

45 

1,530  00 

45 

1,  530  00 

4.50 

1,410  00 

450 

1,350  00 

SUMMARY. 

Total  number  of  officers,  3,033.     Total  amount  of  their  .salaries,  $4,907,831  04. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 


733 


Department  of  State,  as  per  official  register  o/lSGS, 


Officer. 


Secretary 

Assistant  Secretaries 

Envoys  extraordinary,  &c 

Envoys  extraordinary,  &c , 

Envoys  extraordinary,  &c , 

Ministers  resident 

Secretaries  of  legation , 

Secretaries  of  legation 

Secretaries  of  legation 

Assistant  secretaries  of  legation 

Interpreter  and  secretary  of  legation 
Dragoman  and  secretary  of  legation. 

lnterpret<»r 

Interpreters  

Interpreters  

Commissioner  and  consul  general 

Commissioner  and  consul  general 

Consul  general 

Consul  general 

Consul  generals 

Consul  general 

Consul  general 

Consul  generals , 

Consul  general 

Consuls 

Consuls 

Consuls 

Consuls 


Consuls 

Consuls 

Consuls 

Consuls , 

Consuls 

Consuls 

Consuls 

Vice-consul 

Vice-<!onsuls 

Commercial  agents 

Commercial  agents - 

Commercial  agents 

Commercial  agents 

Marslials  to  consular  courts 

Consular  clerks 

Judges  under  provisions  of  treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  April  7,  1862  . 
Arbitrator  under  provisions  of  treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  April  7, 18t)2. 
Arbitrator  under  provisions  of  treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  April  7,  1862. 

Commistioner 

Commissioner 

Commissioner 

Secretary  of  commissioner 

Governors  of  Territory 

Governors  of  Territory 

Secretaries  of  Territory 

Secretary  of  Territory 

Secretaries  of  Territory 


394 


Annual 
salary. 


$8,  000  00 

3,  M»  00 

17,  "jOO  00 

12,000  00 

10,000  00 

7,  oOO  00 

2,  (i2o  00 
\,W»  00 

1,  TiOO  00 
1,500  00 
.5,  000  01) 

3,  OIJO  00 

2,  5110  00 
1,.500  00 
1,  000  00 
7,  50t)  00 

4,  (100  00 

5,  000  00 
G,  OOO  00 

3,  000  00 

Fees. 

3,  500  00 

4,  000  00 

1,  500  00 
7,  500  00 

2,  000  00 

3,  000  00 

1,  500  00 

3,  500  00 

2,  500  00 

4,  000  00 
1,  000  00 

750  00 

500  00 

Fees. 

1, 500  00 

Fees. 

2,000  00 

1,  500  00 

1,  000  00 

Fees. 

C) 

1,  000  00 

2,  500  00 
1,000  00 
2,000  00 
2,  000  00 
3,000  00 

5,  000  00 
2,  000  00 

1,  500  00 

2,  500  00 
1,800  00 

1,  500  00 

2,  000  00 


Total  annu:il 
salary. 


$8,  000  00 
7,  000  00 

35,  000  00 
84,  0,0  00 

20,  000  (JO 
157,  (JOO  00 

5,  250  00 
12,  GOO  00 
25,  500  00 
3,0110  OO 
5,  000  00 
3,  000  00 

2,  500  00 

3,  000  00 
2,  000  00 
7,  500  00 
4,000  00 

5,  000  00 

6,  000  00 

6,  000  00 

'3,"  566' 66 
8, 000  00 

1,500  00 
1.5,500  00 
46,  000  00 

36.  000  00 
117,000  00 

21,  000  00 
~'2,  500  00 
20,  000  00 
18,  000  00 

2,  250  00 

2,  500  00 

""i.'soo'oo 
"'"6,066  m 

4,  500  00 

7,  COO  00 

'"7,"  666' 66 

3,  000  00 

7,500  00 
1,000  00 

2,  000  00 
2,000  00 

3,  000  00 

5,  000  00 
2,000  00 
9,  000  00 
5,  000  00 
9,  000  00 
1,500  00 
4,000  00 


797,  600  00 


*  1,  000  and  fees. 

RECAPITULATION — DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE. 

Total  number  of  officers,  394.     Total  annual  salary,  S"97,  600. 


Interior  Department  as  per  Official  Register,  1865. 


Officer. 


Secretary  

Assistant  Secretary 

Commissioner  General  Land  Office 

Registers 

Receivers 

Surveyors  of  public  lands 

Surveyors  of  public  laada 

*  And  fees, 


Number. 


Annual 
salary. 


$8,  000  00 
3,  .5110  00 
3,  000  00 
500  00* 
500  00' 
2,  000  00 
3,000  00 


Total  annual 
salary. 


$8,000  00 
3,  500  00 
3,  000  00 
36,  500  00 
36,  500  00 
8,  000  00 
9,000  00 


734  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Interior  Department  as  'per  Official  Register,  1S65 — Contiuued. 


Officer. 


Surveyor  of  public  lands 

Surveyor  of  public  lands 

Commissioner  of  Patents 

Examiners-in-Chief 

Examiners 

Assistant  Examiners 

Second  Assistant  Examiners 

Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs 

Superintendents 

Agents 

A  gents 

Special  a^tents 

Sub-agent 

Sub-agent 

Commissioner  of  Pensions 

Agents  for  paying  army  and  navy  pensions  in  the  several  States  and 
Territories 

Captain  of  Capitol  police 

Police  officers 

President  Columbia  Institution  for  Deaf  and  Dumb 

Professor  Columbia  Institution  for  Deaf  and  Dumb 

Professor  Columbia  Institution  for  Deaf  and  Dumb 

Engineer  in  charge  of  Washington  aqueduct 

Superintendent  of  hospital  for  insane  of  the  army,  navy,  revenue-cut- 
ter service  

Superintendent  of  police 

Superintendent  of  Public  Printing 

Commissioners  of  police 

Ex-offlcio  commissioners  of  police 

Surgeons  of  police 

Police  magistrates 

Corps  of  detectives 

Sergeants  of  police 

Police  patrolmen 

Sanitary  police  commissioners 

Policeman  at  President's  House 

Watchman  in  the  crypt 

Gatekeeper  at  Capitol 

Watchm.en  on  the  grounds 

AVatchman  at  public  stables 

Watchmen  at  President's  House 

Watchman  at  reservation  No.  2 

Doorkeeper  at  President's  House 

Assistant  Doorkeeper  at  President's  House 

Public  gardener 

Gaidener  at  President's 


5 
10 

140 
9 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 


548 


Annual 
salary. 


$2,  500  00 

1,  800  00 
4,  500  (X) 
3,  000  00 

2,  500  00 
1,  800  00 

1,  600  00 

3,  000  00 

2,  000  00 
1,  800  00 
1,  500  00 
1,  500  00 
1,  500  00 

1,000  00 

3,  000  00 

4,  000  00" 
1,740  00 

1,  320  00 

2,  500  00 
1,  600  00 
1,800  00 
1,800  00 

2,500  00 
1, 500  00 

3,  000  00 
250  00 
250  00 
300  00 
800  00 
840  00 
600  00 
480  00 
4S0  00 

1,  320  00 
9ti0  00 

1,0-0  00 
720  00 

1,  OfW  00 
720  00 
720  00 
720  00 
720  00 

1,440  00 
StOO  00 


Total  aannal 
salary. 


$2,500  00 

1,800  00 

4,500  00 

9,  000  00 

35,000  00 

21,  600  00 

9,  600  00 

3,  000  00 

14.000  00 

7,200  00 

72, 000  00 

10,500  00 

1,.500  00 

3,000  00 

3,000  00 


1,740  00 
35,  640  00 

2,  500  00 
1,600  00 
1,  800  00 
1,800  00 

2,500  00 
1,  500  00 

3,  000  00 
1,  250  00 

500  OO 

900  00 

4,000  00 

4,200  00 

6,  (KX)  00 

67,  200  00 

4. '320  00 

1,  »20  00 

960  00 

1,000  00 

1,  440  00 

1,  000  00 

1,440  00 

720  00 

720  00 

720  00 

1,  440  00 

060  00 


457,  870  00 


*  Fees ;  whole  compensation  not  to  exceed  $4,000  per  annum. 

RECAPITULATION— INTERIOR  UEl'AKTMENT. 
Total  number  of  officers,  548.     Total  annual  salary,  S-157,870. 


Post  Office  Department  as  per  Official  Register,  1865. 


Postmaster  General 

Assistant  Postmasters  General 

Postmasters 

Special  agents 

Special  agents 

Special  agent 

lioute  agents 

I.oial  agents 

Mail  contractors 

I, Ileal  mail  agency 

Mail  messenger  service 

Special  mail  messenger  service 


1 
3 

26,  619* 

29 

3 

1 

410 

51 

3,926 

67 

1,776 

1,838 


$8, 000  00 
3,  500  00 

t 
1,600  00 
],200  00 
2, 500  00 


34,722 


$8,000  00 

10,  500  00 

,  250,  000  OOJ 

46,  400  00 

3,  600  00 

2,  500  00 

287, 000  00§ 

25,  353  00 

001,315  00 

13,541  27 

lll,4f»2  32 

51,997  68 


9,811,699  27 


*  Ab  per  Kpecial  list  corrected  by  Post  Office  Department  to  October  20,  1867. 
t  Too  varied  for  speedy  classification. 
X  Ab  per  report  of  Po»tma»ter  General. 


§  Approximation. 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PEESIDENT.  735 

Attorney  GcneraVs  Office  and  Judiciary,  as  licr  Official  Register,  1S65. 


Officer. 


Attorney  General 

Assistant  Attorney  General , 

I>istrlct  attorneys,  States  and  Territories 

Marshals'  courts , 

Chief  justices,  Territories , 

Chief  justices.  Territories 

Chief  justices,  Territories 

Associate  justices.  Territories 

Associate  justices,  Territories 

Associate  justices.  Territories , 


Number. 


Annual 
salary. 


$8,  ono  no 

■i.-M)  (10 

*2.50  00 

*:.'r,IJ  0() 

2,  500  00 

a,  0011  01) 

1,  800  00 

2,  500  00 
2,0110  00 
1,  800  00 


Total  annual 
salary. 


$8, 000  no 

:!,  500  (10 
15,  Olio  00 
15,0110  00 
5,  0(K)  00 
(),  000  00 
5,  400  00 
10,000  00 
12,000  00 

10.  coo  00 


90,  700  00 


*  And  fees. 

Department  of  Agriculture,  as  jier  Official  Register,  1865. 


1 

s:?  oon  00 

$3  000  00 

Department  of  Education,  as  per  law  creating  Department. 

1 

$4, 000  00 

$4  000  00 

'     Treasury  Department,  as  per  Official  Register,  1865. 

Secretary 

Assistant  Secretaries 

Comptroller 

Comptroller 

Commissioner  of  Customs 

Auditors 

Treasurer 

Assistant  Treasurer 

Assistant  Treasurer 

Assistant  Treasurer 

Assistant  Treasurers 

Assistant  Treasurer 

United  States  depositary 

United  States  depositaries 

United  States  depositaries 

United  States  depositary 

United  States  depositary 

United  .States  depositaries 

United  States  depositaries 

United  States  depositaries 

United  States  depositary 

United  States  depositary 

United  States  depositary 

Register 

Assistant  register 

Chief  of  loan  branch 

Comptroller  National  Currency  Bureau 

Deputy  comptroller 

Solicitor 

Chief  of  first  division 

Assistant  of  tirst  division 

Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue 

Deputy  commissioner  of  internal  revenue 

Assessors  of  internal  revenue 

Collectors  of  internal  revenue 

Deputy  collectors 

Supervising  architect  of  Bureau  of  Construction,  (Coast  Survey)   .. . 
Assistant  supervising  architect  of  Bureau   of   Construction,   (Coast 
Survey.) 

Superintendent  of  United  States  Coast  .Survey 

First  assistant  superintendent 

Second  assistant  superintendent 

Hydrographic  inspector 

*  And  fees. 


4 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
22(i 

210 

1 
1 

1 
1 


$8,  000  00 

3,500  00 

3,  .500  00 

3,  000  00 

3,  000  00 

3,  000  00 

5,  000  00 

2,  800  00 

6,  000  00 

4,  500  00 

4,  000  00 

1,  000  00 

2,  500  00 

2,  000  00 

1,  800  00 

1,  COO  00 

1,  500  00 

1,  400  00 

1,  3011  00 

I,  200  00 

1,  000  00 

750  00 

480  00 

3,  000  00 

2,000  00 

2,  000  00 

5,  000  00 

2,  .500  00 

3,  500  00 

3,  000  (10 

2,  5(.0  00 

4,  000  00 

2.  750  00 

*1,  .5(J0  (10 

*1,5(I0  00 

1 ,  .5i;0  00 

.3,  000  00 

2,  000  00 

6,  000  00 

3,  500  00 

2,  500  00 

2,  825  00 

$8,  000  00 

7,  000  00 
3,  500  00 
3,  000  00 

3,  000  00 
18,000  (X) 

5,  000  00 
2,  81)0  00 
G,  000  00 

4,  500  00 

8,  000  00 

1,  000  00 

2,  500  00 

6,  000  00 

3,  600  00 
1,  CDO  00 
1,  .500  00 
2,800  00 

7,  800  00 

4,  800  00 

1,  000  00 
750  00 
480  00 

3,  000  00 

2,  OOO  00 
2,  01)0  00 

5,  000  00 

2,  500  00 

3.  500  00 

3,  000  00 
2,  .500  00 

4,  01)0  00 

2,  750  00 
602,  008  90 
408,  23!)  66 
324,  000  00 

3,  OI'O  00 
2,  000  00 

6,  000  00 
3,500  00 

5,  000  00 
2,  825  00 


736  IMrEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

Treasury  Department,  as  per  Official  Register,  1SG5 — Continued. 


OfBcer. 


DiBbnrsing  ap:ent  of  Coast  Survey 

Atisistant  and  foreman  of  weiRhts  and  measures 

Director  of  mint  at  Pliiladelpliia 

Treasurer  of  mint  at  Philadelphia 

Melter  and  refiner  of  mint  at  Philadelphia 

Assayer  of  mint  at  Philadelphia '. 

Chief  coiner  of  mint  at  Pliilailelphia 

Engraver  of  mint  at  Phihideliihia 

Superintendent  of  branch  mint  at  San  Francisco 

Treasurer  of  branch  mint  at  San  Francisco 

Assayer  of  branch  mint  at  San  Francisco 

Melter  and  refiner  of  branch  mint  at  San  Francisco. 

Coiner  of  branch  mint  at  San  Francisco 

Superintendent  of  branch  mint  at  Denver 

Assayer  of  branch  mint  at  Denver 

Chief  coiner  of  branch  mint  at  Denver 

Melter  and  refiner  of  branch  mint  at  Denver 

Assistant  treasurer  at  Denver 

Superintendent  of  assay  office  at  New  York 

Assayer  of  assay  office  at  New  York 

Melter  and  retiner  of  assay  office  at  New  York 

Deputy  treasurer  of  assay  office  at  New  York 

Accountant  at  assay  office  at  New  York 

Weigh  clerk  at  assay  office  at  New  York 

Special  agent 

Special  agents 

Special  agents 

Special  agents 

Special  agents 

Supervising  inspectors  of  steamboats 

Local  inspectors  of  steamboat  hulls 

Local  inspectors  of  steamboat  boilers 

Captains  revenue-cutter  service 

First  lieutenants  revenue-cutter  service 

Second  lieutenants  revenue-cutter  service 

Third  lieutenants  revenue-cutter  service 

Chief  engineers  revenue-cutter  service 

First  assistant  engineers  revenue-cutter  service 

Second  assistant  engineers  revenue-cutter  service... 

Chief  clerk  of  Light-House  Board 

Physicians,  &c.,  at  marine  hospitals 


Nuttiber. 


Annual 

salary. 


$2,  500  00 

2,  500  OO 

3,  500  00 
2,  000  00 
2,  000  00 
2,  000  00 
2,000  00 

2,  000  00 

4,  500  00 

4,  500  00 

3,  000  00 
3,000  00 
3,  000  00 
2,000  00 
1,  800  00 
1,800  00 

1,  800  00 
.500  00 

3,  500  00 
3,  000  00 
*3,  000  (10 
3,  000  00 

2,  500  OU 
2,500  00 

5,  000  00 

3,  000  00 
2,  500  00 

^6  per  day. 

5  per  day. 

1,500  00 


1, 800  00 
1,  400  00 
1,  200  00 

900  00 
1,  40U  00 
1,200  00 

900  00 
2, 000  00 


1,023 


Total  annua 
salary. 


$2,  500  CO 

2,  .500  (0 

3,  500  00 
2,  0(M)  00 
2.0(X)  00 
2, 000  00 
2,  000  00 
2,  000  00 

4,  500  00 

4,  500  00 
3.000  00 
3,000  (M) 
3,000  (10 

2,  000  00 

1,  8(J()  00 

1, 8110  on 

1,800  00 
500  00 

3,  500  00 
3,  OUO  00 
3,  000  00 
3,000  00 

2,  500  00 

2,  500  (H) 

5.  000  00 
21,000  00 

5,000  00 

52,  560  00 

3,  650  00 
1.3,500  00 
23,  9(»0  00 
23,  900  00 
61,200  00 
37,  8(^)0  00 
19,  200  00 
43,200  00 
25,200  00 
22.800  00 
16,  200  00 

2,  000  00 
18,800  uO 


a,  036, 263  56 


RECAPITUL.A.TION — TREASURY  DEPART.MK.S'T. 

Total  number  of  officers,  1,023.     Total  annual  salary,  §2,036,263  56. 
RECAPITULATION  TOTAL. 


Department. 


Number  of 
oflBcers. 


Total  annual 
salary. 


Navy 

War 

State 

Interior 

Post  Office 

Attorney  General. 

Agricultural 

Education 

Treasury 

Grand  totals 


,720 
,033 
394 
548 
722 
'l46 
1 
1 
,023 


,  171,  773  00 
,91)7,831  04 
797, 600  00 
457,  870  00 
,811,699  27 
90,  700  00 

3,  000  00 

4,  000  00 
,  036,  263  56 


21,130,TJ6  87 


Errors  excepted 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  Mr.  President,  I  liave  the  honor  to  offer  now  from  the 
files  of  the  Senate,  in  the  first  place,  the  message  of  Andrew  Johnson  nominat- 
ing Lieutenant  General  William  T.  Sherman  to  be  General  by  brevet  in  the 
army  of  the  United  State.s  on  tlu;  i;jlh  day  of  February,  1SG8, 

Mr.  EvARTS.   Under  what  article  is  that  ollered  ]     With  what  intent  ? 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   THE    PRESIDENT.  737 

^[r.  l\[anager  Butlkr.  That  is  under  the  eleventh  article  and  under  the  tenth. 

Jlr.  EvAKTS.  The  tenth  is  the  speeches. 

I^Ir.  Manager  Ik'TLHt!.  I  should  say  the  ninth  ;   I  beg  pardon. 

Jlr.  EvARTS.  That  is  the  Emory  article. 

Mv.  iSIanager  Butler.  That  is  the  General  I'^mory  article. 

!Mr.  EvARTS.  Do  you  offer  this  on  the  ground  that  the  conferring  the  brevet 
on  General  Sherman  was  with  intent  to  obstrnct  the  reconstruction  act  ? 

Mr.  ^[anager  Butlbr.  1  offer  it  valeat  quantum.  I  referred  to  it  in  the  argu- 
ment I  have  already  made.  The  statement  which  I  made  in  the  opening  npou 
that  question  has  been  twice  read — once,  1  believe,  by  yourself,  and  once,  1  am 
certain,  by  Mr.  Curtis. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  It  does  not  seem  to  us,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  to  be 
relevant,  and  it  certainly  is  not  rebutting.  We  liave  offered  no  evidence  bear- 
ing upon  the  only  evidence  you  offered  under  the  eleventh  article,  which  was 
the  telegrams  between  Governor  Parsons  and  the  President  on  the  subject  of 
reconstruction.  We  have  offered  no  evidence  on  that  subject,  and  we  do  not 
see  that  this  appointment 

Mr.  Manager  Butlkr.  They  may  be  both  passed  upon  at  once  to  save  time. 
I  offer,  also,  the  appointment  by  brevet  of  George  H.  Thomas  to  be  Lieutenant 
General  and  then  General  by  brevet,  two  brevets  on  the  21st,  the  same  day  that 
j\Ir.  Stanton  was  removed. 

Mr.  EvARTs.  What  was  the  last  paper? 

Mr.  Jlauager  Bi:tler.  The  last  paper  was  the  appointment  by  brevet  of 
iMajor  General  George  H.  Thomas  first  to  be  Lieutenant  General  by  brevet  and 
then  General  by  brevet ;  and  that  was  done  on  the  same  day  that  Mr.  Stanton 
was  removed,  the  21st  of  Eebruary. 

Mr.  EvARTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  it  is  very  apparent  that  this 
does  not  rebut  any  evidence  we  have  offered.  It  is,  then,  offered  as  evidence- 
in-chief,  that  the  conferring  of  brevets  on  these  two  officers  is  in  some  v,':.}' 
witiiin  the  evil  intents  that  are  alleged  in  these  articles.  We  submit  that  on 
that  question  there  is  nothing  in  this  evidence  that  imports  any  such  evil  intent. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  I  only  wish  to  say  upon  this  that  we  do  not  under- 
stand that  this  case  is  to  be  tried  upon  the  qaestiou  of  whether  evidence  is 
rebutting  evidence  or  otherwise,  because  we  understand  that  to-day  the  House 
of  Hepresentatives  may  bring  a  new  article  of  impeachment  if  they  choose,  and 
go  on  Avith  it ;  but  we  have  a  right  to  put  in  any  evidence  which  would  be  com- 
petent at  any  stage  of  the  cause  anywhere. 

Mr.  EvARTS  rose. 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  Excuse  me  a  moment. 

Mr.  Evarts.  I  wish  to  ask  a  question.  When  does  our  right  to  give  in  evi- 
dence end  ? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  When  you  get  through  with  competent  and  pertinent 
evidence,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Evarts.  I  supposed  there  was  a  different  rule  for  us? 

Mr.  Manager  Butler.  No,  sir;  that  is  the  rule  that  I  am  claiming  now,  put- 
ting in  competent  and  pertinent  evidence,  not  a  different  rule.  I  beg  you  will 
not  misunderstand  me.  In  many  of  the  States — I  can  instance  the  State  of 
New  Hampshire — I  am  sure  the  rule  of  rebutting  evidence  does  not  obtain  in 
their  courts  at  all.  Each  party  calls  such  pertinent  and  competent  evidence  as 
he  has  up  to  the  hour  when  he  says  he  has  got  through  from  time  to  time  ;  and 
in  some  other  of  the  States  it  is  so  applicable,  and  no  injustice  is  done  to  any- 
body. 

The  Chief  Ju.stice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Sen- 

ftte.     The  honorable  managers  propose  to  put  in  evidence  the  nomination  sent 

by  the  President  to  the  Senate  on  the   13th  of  February,  18(jS.  of  Lieutenant 

General  Sherman  to  be  General  by  brevet,  aud  the  nomination  of  M.yor  General 

47   I  p 


738  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

George  H.  Thomas,  pent  to  the  Senate  on  the  21.-t  of  February,  ISGS,  to  be 
Lieutenant  General  by  l)revet  and  General  by  brevet. 

Mr.  A\THO;\v  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays;   and  they  were  ordered. 

Mr.  IIuWAKD.  I  a?k  that  the  offer  may  be  a«ain  read.     It  is  not  understood. 

The  Chikf  Justice.  The  Chief  Justice  will  stnte  it.  The  ofler  was  not 
reduced  to  writing.     It  is  very  brief,  and  the  Chief  Justice  will  state  it. 

Mr.  How  A  no.  I  respectfully  ask  that  the  Chair  will  again  announce  it  to  the 
Senate. 

The  CiilBF  JrsTicr,.  He  Avas  about  to  do  so.  The  honorable  managers  pro- 
pose to  put  in  evidence  the  nomination  of  Lieutenant  General  Sherman. to  be 
General  by  brevet,  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the  13th  of  February,  1868;  also,  the 
nomination  of  Major  General  George  H.  Thomas  to  be  Lieutenant  General  by 
brevet  and  to  be  General  by  brevet,  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the  21st  of  February, 
1868.  Senators,  you  who  are  of  opinion  that  this  evidence  shall  be  received 
will,  as  your  names  are  called,  answer  yea  ;  those  of  the  contrary  opinion,  nay. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted — yeas,  14,  nays  35;  us 
follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Antliony,  Cole,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Morton,  Eoss, 
Sumner,  Tipton,  Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  Willey,  and  Yates — 14. 

Navs — Messns.  IJuckalew,  Cameron,  C'attell,  Chandler,  Conkling:,  Conness,  Corbett, 
Crag^in,  Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Drake,  Edmunds,  Ferry,  Frelinfi^huj'sen,  Harlan,  Hen- 
dricks, Howard,  Howe,  Johnson,  McCreerv.  Morg-an,  Morrill  of  Elaine,  Morrill  of  Vermont, 
Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Pomeroy,  Ramsev,  Sherman,  Sprague, 
Stewart.  Thayer,  Vickers,  Williams,  and  Wilson — '.]'>. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Bayard,  Norton,  Nye,' Saulsbury,  and  Wade — 5. 

So  the  Senate  refused  to  receive  the  evidence  offered. 

Mr.  Manager  Bltlkr.  Mr.  President,  I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  the  case 
on  the  part  of  the  managers  is  closed,  and  all  witnesses  who  are  here  under  the 
subpoena  of  the  Senate,  at  the  instance  of  the  managers,  may  be  discharged. 

The  Chief-  Justice.  Docs  the  Chief  Justice  understand  that  the  case  oii  the 
part  of  the  President  is  closed  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  We  are  able  to  make  the  same  announcement  as  regards  wit- 
nesses who  are  attending  on  the  part  of  the  defi-nce  under  subpoena ;  and  this 
announcement  on  both  sides,  we  assume,  precludes  almost  necessarily  any  attempt 
to  proceed  with  evidence  again. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  honorable  managers  will  please  proceed  with  their 
argument. 

Mr.  Ma\ager  Boutwell.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Senators,  it  has  fallen  to 
me,  upon  the  judgment  of  the  managers,  to  make  the  first  argument  on  the  part 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the  close.  It  is  very  likely  that  I  shall  be 
obliged  to  occupy  the  largej."  part  of  a  day  in  presenting' to  the  honorable  Senate 
the  views  which  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty  to  offer.  Under  these  circumstances,  I 
have  to  ask  that  the  Senate  will  do  me  tlie  favor  to  adjourn  until  to-morrow 
morning  at  the  usual  houi-,  when  I  .«hall  be  prepared  to  proceed. 

Mr.  JoH\S().\.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  move  that  the  Senate,  as  a  court  of  impeach- 
ment, adjourn  until  11  o'clock  to-morrow. 

Several  Si;.\at()H8.   Say  12  o'clock. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  now  fixes  11  as  the  hour  of  meeting. 

Jlr.  EvAUTS.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  may  I  be  heard  a  moment  1 

The  Chief  Justici;.  On  a  motion  to  adjourn  no  debate  is  iu  order. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  withdraw  the  motion. 

Ml-.  EvAl'.TS.  Of  course  I  do  not  rise  with  the  view  of  making  the  least  objec- 
tion to  the  suggestion  on  the  part  of  the  honorable-  manager,  which  seems  to 
us  to  be  entirely  reasonable,  but  to  couple  v/ith  it  a  statement  to  which  1  beg 
the  attention  of  the  court  for  a  moment.  Our  learned  associate,  Mi:  Stanbery, 
has,  from  the  outset,  been  ndied  upon  by  the  President  and  by  the  associate 
counsel  to  make  the  final  argument  in  this  cause ;  and  there  are  many  reasons, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    TRESIDENT.  739 

professional  aiul  others,  wliy  we  should  all  wish  that  this  purpose  should  he 
carried  out.  It  has  heen  his  misfortune,  in  the  midst  of  this  trial,  and  after  it 
had  proceeded  for  a  fortnight,  to  he  taken  suddenly  ill.  The  illness,  of  no  great 
gravity,  is  yielding  to  the  remedies  prescribed  and  to  the  progress  of  time,  so 
that  he  now  occuj)ies  his  parlor,  as  we  found  him  this  morning.  The  summing. 
up  of  a  cause  of  this  M-eight  in  many  aspects,  regarding  the  testimony  ?.nd  the 
subject  and  the  situation,  is,  of  course,  a  labor  of  no  ordinary  magnitude,  physi- 
cal and  otherwise,  and  Mr.  Stanbery  is  of  the  o])inion,  in  which  we  concur,  that 
he  will  need  an  interval  of  two  days,  added  to  what  in  the  course  of  the  trial 
would  probably  bring  him  to  his  feet  in  the  argument,  to  have  the  adequate 
strength  for  that  purpose.  It  might  have  been  left  until  the  day  on  which  he 
should  have  appeared,  and  then  have  the  request  made  for  a  day  or  two's  relief 
in  this  regard  ;  but  it  occurred  to  us  to  be  fairer  to  the  managers  that  the  inter- 
val of  repose  should  be  interposed  at  a  time  when  it  would  be  useful  and  valua- 
ble to  them  also,  as  the  proofs  are  not  entirely  printed  in  the  proper  form  for 
reference,  and  the  latter  voluminous  evidence  on  the  subject  of  appointments  and 
the  routine  of  the  practice  of  the  government  is  such  as  to  require  considerable 
investigation  in  order  to  point  out  to  the  Senate  the  efficacy  on  the  one  side  of, 
or  the  answer  on  the  other  to,  the  proofs.  It  is,  therefore,  our  duty  now  to 
suggest,  (coupling  it  with  the  suggestion  of  the  managers,  that  until  to  morrow 
should  be  given  for  the  propriety  of  the  more  agreeable  introduction  of  the  argu- 
ment on  their  part,)  that  we  ask  that  you  consider  this  statement  which  I  have 
made  to  you,  and  see  whether  it  is  not  better  in  all  respects  that  the  matter 
should  now  be  disposed  of.  I  think  the  managers  will  concur  that  this  is  the 
proper  time  to  consider  it  and  accommodate  matters  to  the  providential  inter- 
ference with  the  leader  of  the  President's  counsel  and  his  contideutial  friend  and 
adviser. 

]\Ir.  Johnson.  What  is  the  motion  ? 

Mr.  EvARTS.  The  suggestion  is  that  an  interval  of  two  days  should  be  given 
now,  instead  of  waiting  till  Mr.  Staubery  shall  come  in  ;  and  I  understand  the 
managers  will  agree  it  is  better  it  should  occur  now  than  later. 
Mr.  Yates.  I  move  that  the  Senate  adjourn  until  Wednesday. 

Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  Yates.  I  withdraw  the  rnotion  if  the  managers  desire  to  be  heard. 
Mr.  Manager  Boutwell.  Mr.  President,  if  it  shall  be  the  pleasure  of  the 
Senate  to  consider  favorably  the  request  made  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the 
respondent,  which  is  a  question  of  public  duty  on  which  I  can  express  no  opin- 
ion, I  certainly  should  desire  that  the  time  to  be  granted  should  be  granted  at  once. 
I  may  say  that  if  I  had  consulted  my  own  feelings  exclusively  I  should  have 
made  the  request  for  a  day  more  of  time  for  further  examination  of  the  record 
and  more  careful  preparation  than  I  have  yet  been  able  to  make  ;  but  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  trial  I  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  ask  that  favor  or  considera- 
tion upon  my  own  account.  I  have  only  now  to  say  that  if  it  is  the  judgment 
of  the  Senate  that  time  should  be  granted  to  the  learned  counsel  M'ho  is  to  close 
for  the  respondent  it  would  certainly  be  very  desirable  on  my  part  that  the  time 
should  be  granted  at  once,  and  that  we  uv\y  ail  have  the  benefit  of  it  in  pre- 
paring Avhat  we  deem  it  proper  to  say. 

Mr.  Evahts.  One  word,  if  I  may  be  indulged.  The  honorable  senators  will 
also  perceive  that  if  Mr.  Stanbeiy's  resolution  and  (expectation  should  be  disap- 
pointed, it  is  then  a  matter  of  some  importance  for  us  of  the  defence  to  supply 
his  place  as  well  as  we  may  on  an  unexpected  emergency,  and  a  little  time  in 
that  behalf  also  would  be  valuable  to  us. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  move  that  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court 
of  impeachment,  adjourn  until  Thurs'day  morning. 
Several  senators.  Say  Wednesday. 


740  IMPEACHMENT    OF    THE    PRESIDENT 

]\rr.  !Managor  Logan.  If  the  gentleman  will  witlidraw  the  motion  for  a  moment, 
1  desire  to  make  a  request  of  the  Senate. 

^Ir.  J()ll.\SO.\.  Certainly;  or  rather  I  would  submit  the  motion  in  this  form: 
that  when  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  court  of  impfachraout,  adjourns  to-day,  it 
adjourn  to  meet  at  eleven  o'clock  on  Wednesday  morning. 

Mv.  DooLlTTLE.  I  suggest  twelve  o'clock  instead  of  eleven.     [No,  no.] 

The  Chief  Justfck.  The  rule  now  fixes  eleven  as  the  hour  of  meeting. 

'Mv.  Manager  Logan.  I  merely  desire  to  make  a  request.  Is  this  the  proper 
time  to  do  it,  sir?  « 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is. 

Mr.  Manager  Logan.  Mr.  President  and  Senators,  I  desire  to  make  a  request 
of  the  Senate  before  the  adjournment,  as  doubtless  that  will  be  granted  upon  the 
statement  of  the  honorable  counsel  for  the  President  and  the  managers,  as  they 
both  seem  to  desire  this  extension  of  time.  I  have  not  presumption  enough  to 
ask  of  the  Senate  permission  to  address  them  on  the  issues  presented  for  their 
consideration,  nor  do  I  desire  to  do  so  ;  but  I  ask  that  I  may  be  permitted  to 
tile  to-day  the  printed  argament  which  I  have  prepared,  that  it  may  become  a 
part  of  the  record,  without  taking  the  time  of  the  Senate,  inasmuch  as  the  evi- 
dence on  both  sides,  for  the  prosecution  on  the  part  of  the  people  and  for  the 
respondent,  has  been  closed. 

Mr.  Stewaut.  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  leave  be  granted  to  the  manager 
to  file  his  argument. 

The  Chief  Justice.  That  involves  a  change  of  the  rules,  and  it  cannot  be 
done  if  there  is  any  objection. 

Mr.  BucKALEW.  I  object. 

Mr.  Johnson.  May  I  ask  the  honorable  manager  whether  the  argument  is 
now  in  print? 

Mr.  Manager  Logan.  It  is,  and  I  am  ready  to  file  it  at  once, 

Mr.  S TEWAUT.  I  make  the  motion  that  leave  be  granted,  and  that  the  mana- 
ger furnish  a  copy  of  his  argument  to  the  other  side. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  order  cannot  be  made  except  by  unanimous  con- 
sent, as  it  involves  a  change  of  the  rules.     Is  there  unanimous  consent? 

Mr.  BucKALinv.  I  object. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  ask  that  the  rule  bearing  on  this  matter  be  read. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  twenty-first  rule. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

XXI.  Tlie  case,  on  cacli  side,  shall  be  opened  by  one,  person.  The  final  arp^iiment  on  tho 
merits  may  be  made  by  two  persons  on  each  side,  (unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Senate, 
upon  application  for  that  purpose,)  and  the  av<juuieut  shall  be  opened  and  closed  on  the  part 
of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Manager  Logan.  Mr.  President,  the  reason  I  made  the  request  to-day 
• — if  it  is  denied,  as  a  matter  of  course  I  shall  not  renew  it — was  that  I  might 
]iresent  the  argument  I  have  prepared  to  the  counsel  for- tho  respondent,  that 
they,  if  they  saw  anything  worthy  of  leply  in  it,  might  have  an  opportunity  of 
replying  in  their  argument. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  rule  permits  argument  by  but  two  counsel,  one  in 
opening  and  one  in  the  close,  on  the  part  of  the  managers,  and  two  on  the  part  of 
tlie  President.  The  question  of  changing  the  rule  has  been  frequently  befV)re  the 
Siniatc  and  the  S^^nate  has  uniformly  rei'ui^ed  to  alter  it.  An  order  can  be  sub- 
mitted to-day  to  be  considered  on  the  next  day  of  meeting,  but  not  for  present 
consideration  except  by  unanimous  co!isent. 

Mr.  HowK.  I  did  not  hear  any  objection. 

The  Chief  Justice    Objection  has  been  made. 

;Mr.  DooLlTTLE.  I  object. 

Mr.  Manager  BotrrwELL.  ]\[r.  l^resideut,  before  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate 
I  should  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  to  a  feature 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   TOE    PRESIDENT.  741 

of  the  testimony.  It  Imppens  ilmt  tlio  managers,  as  I  snpposo-  under  the  con- 
struction given  to  the  rule,  are  to  proceed  first  in  the  argiuncnt.  A  largt;  mass 
of  testimony  has  been  introduced  upon  the  subject  of  removals  and  appoint- 
ments. At  the  present  time  I  am  not  informed  whether  there  are  special  cases 
on  which  the  counsel  for  the  President  rely.  I  think  it  may  be  proper  for  me 
at  this  time  to  ask  them  whether  there  are  cases  upon  which  they  purpose  to 
rely  as  furnisliing  precedents  for  the  course  pursued  by  the  President  on  the 
21st  of  February. 

Mr.  Antho.w.  ]\[r.  President,  T  will  make  a  motion,  to  lie  over  until  to-mor- 
row, that  the  21st  rule  be  so  modified  as  to  allow  llie  honorable  manager 

Tlie  Chikf  JrsTiCR.  'I'he  order  v/ill  be  reduced  to  wrking. 

Mr.  Stewart.   1  have  drawn  up  an  order,  wliich  I  submit  in  writing. 

The  Chikf  Ji;stice.  The  senator  from  Nevada  submits  au  order,  Avhich  will 
be  read  by  the  Secretary. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  foilows  : 

Ordered.  Tliat  the  lionorablo  Manatrer  Lop^aa  have  leave  to  file  his  written  ar^uiiiout  to- 
day, aud  furnish  a  copy  to  each  of  the  counsel  for  the  respondent. 

^Ir.  Sherman.  Mr.  President,  I  submit,  as  a  substitute  for  that,  to  go  over  with 
it,  the  following : 

That  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  and  the  counsel  for  the 
respondent  have  leave  to  file  written  or  printed  arguments  before  the  oral  argunieut  coni- 
uienees. 

The  Chief  Ji:stice.  The  order  submitted  by  the  senator  from  Nevada  is 
under  consideration  imless  objected  to. 

Mr.  BucKALEW.  I  mean  my  objection  to  apply  to  all  this. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  objected  to.  For  information,  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  senator  from  Ohio  will  be  read. 

jMr.  Stewart.  I  will  accept  the  amendment  oflFered  by  the  senator  from 
Ohio  as  a  substitute  for  my  pi-oposition. 

'i'he  Chief  Justice.  The  order  as  now  proposed  will  be  read  for  information. 

The  chief  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

Ordered,  That  the  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  counsel 
for  the  respondent  have  leave  to  file  written  or  printed  arguments  before  the  oral  argument 
commences. 

The  Chief  Justice.  The  present  consideration  of  the  order  is  objected  to  ; 
it  will  lie  over  until  to-morrow. 

3Ir.  Doolittlr.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  the  motion  now  made  is  a  change  of  the 
rule,  and  I  object  to  it. 

The  Chief  Justice.  It  is  already  objected  to. 

Mr.  JoHNSOM.  I  now  renew  the  motion  that  when  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a 
court  of  impeachment,  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  at  11  o'clock  on  Wednesday. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  EdiMunds.  I  move  that  the  Senate  sitting  for  this  trial  do  now  adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  Senate,  sitting  for  the  trial  of  the  impeach- 
ment, adjourned  until  Wednesday,  the  22d  instant. 


:.:>;■:■;>;«>!) 


r 


i 


fifif 


i 


mM^ 


^i«^'^*i»j»j«j*;»v«.'«.'«j'>>>j' 


